# Are competitive Sport Martial Artists superior?



## Hanzou

This was a question asked in my other thread and I thought it warranted its own thread. There is a slight disdain for sports and competition among traditionalists within the martial arts. It even pops up in my style Brazilian Jiujitsu, despite the fact that what brought Bjj to prominence was sport and competition. There is a group of people within Bjj who dislike what competition has done to the art, and like to hammer in the idea that sport dilutes the self defense aspect of the art.

While there is some merit to that point, there is another inescapable fact; Competition and sport (particularly MMA) have kept Bjj "honest" in that it forces the style to never drift too far into having its own head up its ****. For example, after Bjj exploded on the scene via the early UFCs, numerous other grappling systems emerged to try to supplant it as the main grappling art of the emerging sport. At first, Bjj exponents (mainly the Gracies) pushed a sort of purity message and refused to embrace other grappling styles, saying that their system of grappling was superior to all others. However, after the Gracies got beat by grapplers who had cross-trained in Bjj, other Bjj schools embraced other grappling forms. Over two decades later, it would be hard to argue that Bjj isn't an overall better martial art than it was when it first exploded on the scene in the 1990s.

Beyond general MA improvement, it would be a bit silly to believe that your average MA hobbyist is a better martial artist than a professional fighter. Again, when I look into my own martial art, I look at guys like Ryan Gordon, Keenan Cornelius, JT Torres, Marcelo Garcia, Ryan Hall, etc. and recognize that they would absolutely destroy me. There are videos of competitive Bjj players who roll against entire schools and submit students in that school within a matter of minutes if not seconds. Even the black belt instructors are easily dealt with, and considering that I would struggle with the average Bjj black belt, the fact that these people are several magnitudes better than them is something to think about.

Which brings us back to the general question; Are competitive sport martial artists superior to non competitive martial artists? I simply can't see how they aren't. Beyond grappling, look at the various showcases of traditional Chinese martial artists going up against MMA and sport fighters. Universally, the traditional martial artists lose, and many of the people they lose to aren't even professional fighters. Pushing this up a notch, if Jon Jones or Khabib walked into your dojo, could your instructor beat them in a fight? Bringing this down a notch would your traditional karate instructor be able to stand toe to toe against an amateur boxer? These are questions to consider because we continue to run across people who say that since their style includes wrist locks, throws, kicks, and kata, they have an advantage over a boxer because "the boxer only has punches".

I would argue that the boxer has more than punches. They have conditioning, durability, endurance, and fighting experience. 

Anyway, I'm interested in your thoughts.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Are competitive sport martial artists superior to non competitive martial artists?


They are better at competitive sports.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> it would be a bit silly to believe that your average MA hobbyist is a better martial artist than a professional fighter.


It would be a mistake to assume that just because someone doesn't spend 8 hours every day training in a martial that they are just a hobbyist.


----------



## Steve

I think any art that is calibrated based on actual performance is going to be better.  For most of us, who don't work in a niche field where we get to be professionally violent, competition is the only context for application available. 

We have had debates/arguments/discussions ad nauseum about the subtle differences between competing and not competing make on the overall learning and performance of the people who train in a style.  You raise many good points, and I agree completely.

But the proof is in how reliably people can apply their skills within and outside of the context for which they train.  I believe if you took 400 people in a study where their practical skills are evaluated at regular, the results would speak for themselves, and it wouldn't even be close.  To be clear, I'm talking about evaluating relative performance within the specific trained context of the art, and also tested outside of the context of the art.  Performance and application will always bear more consistent, reliable results than a perpetual training cycle. 

400 people, all about the same age, all with average fitness levels and health, train x4 days per week for 2 hours each day:   

Group 1:  100 trained 100 in any competitive style (e.g., muay thai, boxing, bjj, sambo, judo)
Group 2:  100 in any non-competitive style (ninjutsu, aikido, krav maga)
Group 3:  100 who trained in a performance based fitness program (crossfit, parkour, etc), and
Group 4:  100 who don't train as a control group. 
I think after a year, I think Groups 1 and 3 would be most capable of defending themselves in a fight and would perform pretty similarly.  Group 2 would, I believe, be functionally the same as Group 4.

After 3 years, I think Group 1 pulls clearly ahead of Group 3.  Groups 2 and 4 would still be indistinguishable.

After 5 years, the lines keep going.  Group 1 at this point would begin to display actual expertise in the area.  Group 3 would be very fit, but would have plateaued.  The only question at 5 years that I would be interested in is whether Group 2 performs better than Group 4.  That's a real question. 

And, you know what?  I think we all know that this is true.  I mean, does anyone question that this is how it would go?


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> They are better at competitive sports.



If the competitive sport is martial arts, wouldn't that mean that they're better at martial arts?


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> This was a question asked in my other thread and I thought it warranted its own thread. There is a slight disdain for sports and competition among traditionalists within the martial arts. It even pops up in my style Brazilian Jiujitsu, despite the fact that what brought Bjj to prominence was sport and competition. There is a group of people within Bjj who dislike what competition has done to the art, and like to hammer in the idea that sport dilutes the self defense aspect of the art.
> 
> While there is some merit to that point, there is another inescapable fact; Competition and sport (particularly MMA) have kept Bjj "honest" in that it forces the style to never drift too far into having its own head up its ****. For example, after Bjj exploded on the scene via the early UFCs, numerous other grappling systems emerged to try to supplant it as the main grappling art of the emerging sport. At first, Bjj exponents (mainly the Gracies) pushed a sort of purity message and refused to embrace other grappling styles, saying that their system of grappling was superior to all others. However, after the Gracies got beat by grapplers who had cross-trained in Bjj, other Bjj schools embraced other grappling forms. Over two decades later, it would be hard to argue that Bjj isn't an overall better martial art than it was when it first exploded on the scene in the 1990s.
> 
> Beyond general MA improvement, it would be a bit silly to believe that your average MA hobbyist is a better martial artist than a professional fighter. Again, when I look into my own martial art, I look at guys like Ryan Gordon, Keenan Cornelius, JT Torres, Marcelo Garcia, Ryan Hall, etc. and recognize that they would absolutely destroy me. There are videos of competitive Bjj players who roll against entire schools and submit students in that school within a matter of minutes if not seconds. Even the black belt instructors are easily dealt with, and considering that I would struggle with the average Bjj black belt, the fact that these people are several magnitudes better than them is something to think about.
> 
> Which brings us back to the general question; Are competitive sport martial artists superior to non competitive martial artists? I simply can't see how they aren't. Beyond grappling, look at the various showcases of traditional Chinese martial artists going up against MMA and sport fighters. Universally, the traditional martial artists lose, and many of the people they lose to aren't even professional fighters. Pushing this up a notch, if Jon Jones or Khabib walked into your dojo, could your instructor beat them in a fight? Bringing this down a notch would your traditional karate instructor be able to stand toe to toe against an amateur boxer? These are questions to consider because we continue to run across people who say that since their style includes wrist locks, throws, kicks, and kata, they have an advantage over a boxer because "the boxer only has punches".
> 
> I would argue that the boxer has more than punches. They have conditioning, durability, endurance, and fighting experience.
> 
> Anyway, I'm interested in your thoughts.


well yes probebly is the answer, provided that they are completing at a reasonable level, their fitness alone gives them the edge

that allowing that thete are also a good number  of non ma who will beat them up, unless they are at an elite level,, so competition  good but not fool proof


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> I think any art that is calibrated based on actual performance is going to be better.  For most of us, who don't work in a niche field where we get to be professionally violent, competition is the only context for application available.
> 
> We have had debates/arguments/discussions ad nauseum about the subtle differences between competing and not competing make on the overall learning and performance of the people who train in a style.  You raise many good points, and I agree completely.
> 
> But the proof is in how reliably people can apply their skills within and outside of the context for which they train.  I believe if you took 400 people in a study where their practical skills are evaluated at regular, the results would speak for themselves, and it wouldn't even be close.  To be clear, I'm talking about evaluating relative performance within the specific trained context of the art, and also tested outside of the context of the art.  Performance and application will always bear more consistent, reliable results than a perpetual training cycle.
> 
> 400 people, all about the same age, all with average fitness levels and health, train x4 days per week for 2 hours each day:
> 
> Group 1:  100 trained 100 in any competitive style (e.g., muay thai, boxing, bjj, sambo, judo)
> Group 2:  100 in any non-competitive style (ninjutsu, aikido, krav maga)
> Group 3:  100 who trained in a performance based fitness program (crossfit, parkour, etc), and
> Group 4:  100 who don't train as a control group.
> I think after a year, I think Groups 1 and 3 would be most capable of defending themselves in a fight and would perform pretty similarly.  Group 2 would, I believe, be functionally the same as Group 4.
> 
> After 3 years, I think Group 1 pulls clearly ahead of Group 3.  Groups 2 and 4 would still be indistinguishable.
> 
> After 5 years, the lines keep going.  Group 1 at this point would begin to display actual expertise in the area.  Group 3 would be very fit, but would have plateaued.  The only question at 5 years that I would be interested in is whether Group 2 performs better than Group 4.  That's a real question.
> 
> And, you know what?  I think we all know that this is true.  I mean, does anyone question that this is how it would go?



I agree with this. I think some people get into the notion that since someone is doing a "sport", they can't apply those abilities to an actual self defense situation. Like RTKDCMB saying they're better at competitive sports, as if their competitive sport isn't kicking/punching someone in the face or twisting folks into pretzels.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> well yes probebly is the answer, provided that they are completing at a reasonable level, their fitness alone gives them the edge
> 
> that allowing that thete are also a good number  of non ma who will beat them up, unless they are at an elite level,, so competition  good but not fool proof



Absolutely. A high skill level doesn't make someone invincible. However, it's fair to say that if you have elite exponents in your MA, those elite exponents are far more capable of defending themselves than the weekend warriors who train a few times a week.

Bjj is very illustrative of this. We have the elite competitors, we have the high level instructors, we have local level competitors, we have standard instructors, and we have standard practitioners who do Bjj for a variety of reasons.

I'm in the last group, and I wouldn't stand a chance against an elite competitor. 

Boxing is like this, Muay Thai is like this, MMA is like this, etc. It stands to reason that pretty much any Martial Art would be like this if they had a professional sport component.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> I agree with this. I think some people get into the notion that since someone is doing a "sport", they can't apply those abilities to an actual self defense situation. Like RTKDCMB saying they're better at competitive sports, as if their competitive sport isn't kicking/punching someone in the face or twisting folks into pretzels.


I feel like a broken record, but transfer of learning is a real thing, it is unavoidable, and it's not complicated.  How skilled are you?  How similar are the contexts?


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Absolutely. A high skill level doesn't make someone invincible. However, it's fair to say that if you have elite exponents in your MA, those elite exponents are far more capable of defending themselves than the weekend warriors who train a few times a week.
> 
> Bjj is very illustrative of this. We have the elite competitors, we have the high level instructors, we have local level competitors, we have standard instructors, and we have standard practitioners who do Bjj for a variety of reasons.
> 
> I'm in the last group, and I wouldn't stand a chance against an elite competitor.
> 
> Boxing is like this, Muay Thai is like this, MMA is like this, etc. It stands to reason that pretty much any Martial Art would be like this if they had a professional sport component.


ive had this discusion with you before and db on countless occations

what you say has validly,  BUT not everyone wants or needs to do that.

i dont want to get beaten up three times a week, so i wont get beaten up once every few years, it makes no sence to me, i did that when i was 28, when i didnt get beaten up that often i think its likely to end badly a lot at my age.

i do ma, largely coz i enjoy it, it giives me a focus for my fitness training and i belive it gives me an edge against most people who dont train and thats all good to me


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> ive had this discusion with you before and db on countless occations
> 
> what you say has validly,  BUT not everyone wants or needs to do that.
> 
> i dont want to get beaten up three times a week, so i wont get beaten up once every few years, it makes no sence to me, i did that when i was 28, when i didnt get beaten up that often i think its likely to end badly a lot at my age.
> 
> i do ma, largely coz i enjoy it, it giives me a focus for my fitness training and i belive it gives me an edge against most people who dont train and thats all good to me



I never said that everyone needs to do it, or wants to do it. I'm simply saying that the professional athlete doing your martial art as a job is better at that martial art than you are. Again, I'll never be able to beat Ryan Gordan or Marcelo Garcia at Jiujitsu, and I'm perfectly fine with that.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> I never said that everyone needs to do it, or wants to do it. I'm simply saying that the professional athlete doing your martial art as a job is better at that martial art than you are. Again, I'll never be able to beat Ryan Gordan or Marcelo Garcia at Jiujitsu, and I'm perfectly fine with that.


thats just so obvious its not worth stating to be honest 

every one who is profesional at anything is likely to be better than a hobbyist. and certainly so with sport. 
as only a small % of people can be professional athletes, its leaves 99% of the population just doing what they can as they can to fit their needs, real or perceived


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> thats just so obvious its not worth stating to be honest
> 
> every one who is profesional at anything is likely to be better than a hobbyist. and certainly so with sport.
> as only a small % of people can be professional athletes, its leaves 99% of the population just doing what they can as they can to fit their needs, real or perceived



You would think that would be obvious, but unfortunately there are people who think that if you're doing sport the art you're practicing is diluted. Unfortunately, that mindset has even permeated Bjj from certain segments in the community who hide within the "self defense" sphere and pretend like they're better than the competitive/sport sphere of Bjj. The current stance of the Gracie family is a prime example of this mindset. While I have a soft spot for "traditional" Bjj, and tend to train at self defense oriented Bjj schools, the reality that modern Bjj runs circles around it is hard to deny.

Thankfully, you'll be hard-pressed to find a Bjj school that doesn't participate in competitions, so those self defense schools are forced to teach the sport aspects of the art.

As I often say, things like pro Bjj and especially MMA keep the art "honest", and doesn't allow it to fall into looney territory. Unfortunately there are a host of other MAs who don't have those safety nets.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> You would think that would be obvious, but unfortunately there are people who think that if you're doing sport the art you're practicing is diluted. Unfortunately, that mindset has even permeated Bjj from certain segments in the community who hide within the "self defense" sphere and pretend like they're better than the competitive/sport sphere of Bjj. The current stance of the Gracie family is a prime example of this mindset. While I have a soft spot for "traditional" Bjj, and tend to train at self defense oriented Bjj schools, the reality that modern Bjj runs circles around it is hard to deny.
> 
> Thankfully, you'll be hard-pressed to find a Bjj school that doesn't participate in competitions, so those self defense schools are forced to teach the sport aspects of the art.


people are full if excuses and self justification, 

someone who completes at even local level is going to be better at " fighting"  than someone who doesnt, 

the whole self defence is completly detached from that is nonsence, someone attacks you punch them on the nose, it doesnt matter what they are doing,  if you tag them it should be over

my bug bear with sd ma, is the delusion that fitness is a prime line of sd, it not that they arnt training like profesional atheletes thats the bigest problem, its that they are not training like atheletes at all


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> ive had this discusion with you before and db on countless occations
> 
> what you say has validly,  BUT not everyone wants or needs to do that.
> 
> i dont want to get beaten up three times a week, so i wont get beaten up once every few years, it makes no sence to me, i did that when i was 28, when i didnt get beaten up that often i think its likely to end badly a lot at my age.
> 
> i do ma, largely coz i enjoy it, it giives me a focus for my fitness training and i belive it gives me an edge against most people who dont train and thats all good to me


Not everyone wants to work in a hot forge all day, and so they'll never be a farrier.  But you wouldn't give them an anvil, a hammer, and a large piece of clay and lead them to believe they will someday be able to shoe a horse.  Not everyone wants to learn higher level math, but you wouldn't give them some baking powder and vinegar and tell them that if they play with that long enough they'll be able to get a job in a laboratory.

There's nothing wrong with doing things that are enjoyable.  But we make choices, and sometimes our choices and our goals will be in unreconcilable conflict.  If the goal is to be a fighter, but you don't want to be a fight...  well, that's not going to work out very well.  There are a lot of effective ways to learn to fight, but they all involve fighting in some way.  There are a lot of effective ways to become more fit, but they all involve some kind of exercise.


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> This was a question asked in my other thread and I thought it warranted its own thread. There is a slight disdain for sports and competition among traditionalists within the martial arts. It even pops up in my style Brazilian Jiujitsu, despite the fact that what brought Bjj to prominence was sport and competition. There is a group of people within Bjj who dislike what competition has done to the art, and like to hammer in the idea that sport dilutes the self defense aspect of the art.
> 
> While there is some merit to that point, there is another inescapable fact; Competition and sport (particularly MMA) have kept Bjj "honest" in that it forces the style to never drift too far into having its own head up its ****. For example, after Bjj exploded on the scene via the early UFCs, numerous other grappling systems emerged to try to supplant it as the main grappling art of the emerging sport. At first, Bjj exponents (mainly the Gracies) pushed a sort of purity message and refused to embrace other grappling styles, saying that their system of grappling was superior to all others. However, after the Gracies got beat by grapplers who had cross-trained in Bjj, other Bjj schools embraced other grappling forms. Over two decades later, it would be hard to argue that Bjj isn't an overall better martial art than it was when it first exploded on the scene in the 1990s.
> 
> Beyond general MA improvement, it would be a bit silly to believe that your average MA hobbyist is a better martial artist than a professional fighter. Again, when I look into my own martial art, I look at guys like Ryan Gordon, Keenan Cornelius, JT Torres, Marcelo Garcia, Ryan Hall, etc. and recognize that they would absolutely destroy me. There are videos of competitive Bjj players who roll against entire schools and submit students in that school within a matter of minutes if not seconds. Even the black belt instructors are easily dealt with, and considering that I would struggle with the average Bjj black belt, the fact that these people are several magnitudes better than them is something to think about.
> 
> Which brings us back to the general question; Are competitive sport martial artists superior to non competitive martial artists? I simply can't see how they aren't. Beyond grappling, look at the various showcases of traditional Chinese martial artists going up against MMA and sport fighters. Universally, the traditional martial artists lose, and many of the people they lose to aren't even professional fighters. Pushing this up a notch, if Jon Jones or Khabib walked into your dojo, could your instructor beat them in a fight? Bringing this down a notch would your traditional karate instructor be able to stand toe to toe against an amateur boxer? These are questions to consider because we continue to run across people who say that since their style includes wrist locks, throws, kicks, and kata, they have an advantage over a boxer because "the boxer only has punches".
> 
> I would argue that the boxer has more than punches. They have conditioning, durability, endurance, and fighting experience.
> 
> Anyway, I'm interested in your thoughts.



Depends on what you mean by "superior".

What is clear is that sports martial arts offer an excellent way to safely apply techniques. That's pretty much unquestionable. And some TMA schools lack just that.

That said, depending on your benchmark, the answer might change.

Would Khabib beat my instructors if he walked into my dojo? Yes.
Would he win if he were their age? Don't know.
Would he fare better than them if there were weapons and/or multiple opponents involved? Don't know.
I've met masters who could easily break baseball bats with a kick. Would those guys be able to hit Khabib with that? Don't know. Would Khabib get hurt if he got caught by that? Don't know, but don't want to try it myself.
Would a karate master be able to maim Khabib with an eye/throat/groin strike coming from a weird angle (= one not used in MMA because regular strikes don't do much damage from there)? Don't know.
I've been on the receiving end of a lua technique that consists in throwing someone from a single or double "nipple grip" (like literally grabbing your nipple area and using it as if gripping your gi). Besides hurting a lot, it's a position that may not naturally happen in grappling, especially no-gi/MMA. And it's pretty surprising. Would it be enough to surprise and beat Khabib? Don't know.

How about we factor in the effects of competition? Would a punch-drunk boxer be "superior" to a healthy tai chi guy? How about someone who got a back injury from bad ukemi in competition? Muhammad Ali was an exceptional fighter for a few years but got diagnosed with Parkinson's disease at only 42. Was he superior to the master who could throw me around with ease in his 60's, a week before dying from late-stage cancer?

How about cross-training? Even if you train purely under one "karate" instructor, he may train you in light of his former judo experience.



> I would argue that the boxer has more than punches. They have conditioning, durability, endurance, and fighting experience.



Those can be acquired by TMA practitioners as well. And yeah some traditional arts have a wider technical palette than, say, boxing.

*The style vs style debate has too many variables to reach a definitive conclusion. Also I find the "TMA" vs "sports" dichotomy artificial. 

What I can agree on, though, is that sports MA typically emphasise applicability in a live situation and that competition encourages innovation and quality control. Those are very valuable elements for any martial artist who trains with "fighting" in mind.

Also, sports MAists may have more possibilities to practice professionnally, especially at elite level and in popular sports. In aikido, for example, there's generally a dearth of professional practitioners.*

Edit: I realised that it might look as if I'm saying that TMA is superior to combat sports. It's not my opinion, cf. bold part.

Edit2: additions.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Not everyone wants to work in a hot forge all day, and so they'll never be a farrier.  But you wouldn't give them an anvil, a hammer, and a large piece of clay and lead them to believe they will someday be able to shoe a horse.  Not everyone wants to learn higher level math, but you wouldn't give them some baking powder and vinegar and tell them that if they play with that long enough they'll be able to get a job in a laboratory.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with doing things that are enjoyable.  But we make choices, and sometimes our choices and our goals will be in unreconcilable conflict.  If the goal is to be a fighter, but you don't want to be a fight...  well, that's not going to work out very well.  There are a lot of effective ways to learn to fight, but they all involve fighting in some way.  There are a lot of effective ways to become more fit, but they all involve some kind of exercise.


im lost steve your contesting points i havent made or even sugested, it like your having an imaginary  conversation with yourself

every one can fight even a quadriplegic can head butt you, its only a question of how well they can fight,

so its a continuum,  not a binnary can and cant, as id sugest is exercise, even if you only go to the fridge for another beer, its exercise


----------



## jobo

O'Malley said:


> Depends on what you mean by "superior".
> 
> What is clear is that sports martial arts offer an excellent way to safely apply techniques. That's pretty much unquestionable. And some TMA schools lack just that.
> 
> That said, depending on your benchmark, the answer might change.
> 
> Would Khabib beat my instructors if he walked into my dojo? Yes.
> Would he win if he were their age? Don't know.
> Would he fare better than them if there were weapons and/or multiple opponents involved? Don't know.
> I've met masters who could easily break baseball bats with a kick. Would those guys be able to hit Khabib with that? Don't know. Would Khabib get hurt if he got caught by that? Don't know, but don't want to try it myself.
> Would a karate master be able to maim Khabib with an eye/throat/groin strike coming from a weird angle (= one not used in MMA because regular strikes don't do much damage from there)? Don't know.
> I've been on the receiving end of a lua technique that consists in throwing someone from a single or double "nipple grip" (like literally grabbing your nipple area and using it as if gripping your gi). Besides hurting a lot, it's a position that may not naturally happen in grappling, especially no-gi/MMA. And it's pretty surprising. Would it be enough to surprise and beat Khabib? Don't know.
> 
> How about we factor in the effects of competition? Would a punch-drunk boxer be "superior" to a healthy tai chi guy? How about someone who got a back injury from bad ukemi in competition? Muhammad Ali was an exceptional fighter for a few years but got diagnosed with Parkinson's disease at only 42. Was he superior to the master who could throw me around with ease in his 60's, a week before dying from late-stage cancer?
> 
> How about cross-training? Even if you train purely under one "karate" instructor, he may train you in light of his former judo experience.
> 
> 
> 
> Those can be acquired by TMA practitioners as well. And yeah some traditional arts have a wider technical palette than, say, boxing.
> 
> *The style vs style debate has too many variables to reach a definitive conclusion. Also I find the "TMA" vs "sports" dichotomy artificial.
> 
> What I can agree on, though, is that sports MA typically emphasise applicability in a live situation and that competition encourages innovation and quality control. Those are very valuable elements for any martial artist who trains with "fighting" in mind.
> 
> Also, sports MAists may have more possibilities to practice professionnally, especially at elite level and in popular sports. In aikido, for example, there's generally a dearth of professional practitioners.*
> 
> Edit: I realised that it might look as if I'm saying that TMA is superior to combat sports. It's not my opinion, cf. bold part.
> 
> Edit2: additions.


easily break a base ball bat with their kick,???  now that id like to see


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> im lost steve your contesting points i havent made or even sugested, it like your having an imaginary  conversation with yourself
> 
> every one can fight even a quadriplegic can head butt you, its only a question of how well they can fight,
> 
> so its a continuum,  not a binnary can and cant, as id sugest is exercise, even if you only go to the fridge for another beer, its exercise


I'm agreeing with you.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> I'm agreeing with you.


sorry mate that happens so rarely,  it took me complely by suprise


----------



## O'Malley

Steve said:


> I think any art that is calibrated based on actual performance is going to be better.  For most of us, who don't work in a niche field where we get to be professionally violent, competition is the only context for application available.
> 
> We have had debates/arguments/discussions ad nauseum about the subtle differences between competing and not competing make on the overall learning and performance of the people who train in a style.  You raise many good points, and I agree completely.
> 
> But the proof is in how reliably people can apply their skills within and outside of the context for which they train.  I believe if you took 400 people in a study where their practical skills are evaluated at regular, the results would speak for themselves, and it wouldn't even be close.  To be clear, I'm talking about evaluating relative performance within the specific trained context of the art, and also tested outside of the context of the art.  Performance and application will always bear more consistent, reliable results than a perpetual training cycle.
> 
> 400 people, all about the same age, all with average fitness levels and health, train x4 days per week for 2 hours each day:
> 
> Group 1:  100 trained 100 in any competitive style (e.g., muay thai, boxing, bjj, sambo, judo)
> Group 2:  100 in any non-competitive style (ninjutsu, aikido, krav maga)
> Group 3:  100 who trained in a performance based fitness program (crossfit, parkour, etc), and
> Group 4:  100 who don't train as a control group.
> I think after a year, I think Groups 1 and 3 would be most capable of defending themselves in a fight and would perform pretty similarly.  Group 2 would, I believe, be functionally the same as Group 4.
> 
> After 3 years, I think Group 1 pulls clearly ahead of Group 3.  Groups 2 and 4 would still be indistinguishable.
> 
> After 5 years, the lines keep going.  Group 1 at this point would begin to display actual expertise in the area.  Group 3 would be very fit, but would have plateaued.  The only question at 5 years that I would be interested in is whether Group 2 performs better than Group 4.  That's a real question.
> 
> And, you know what?  I think we all know that this is true.  I mean, does anyone question that this is how it would go?



Just to make sure I understand your post correctly, are you saying that training without competition is equivalent to not training at all?


----------



## jobo

O'Malley said:


> Just to make sure I understand your post correctly, are you saying that training without competition is equivalent to not training at all?


no i dont think thats his point at all

he seems to be saying training with out competition is equivalent,  to training another sport entirely

my feeling is if it free running against some of the sd training ive seen the sd trainibg will come off second best


----------



## Steve

O'Malley said:


> Just to make sure I understand your post correctly, are you saying that training without competition is equivalent to not training at all?


Not exactly.  To be specific, I'm saying if you took 100 average people training in a non-competitive style and 100 average people who don't train at all:

After 1 year, I would not expect to see a measurable difference in fighting ability.
After 3 years, I would not expect to see much, if any difference in fighting ability.
After 5 years, I'm very curious whether there would be any measurable difference in fighting ability.
To be clear, this is my hypothesis based on a career in the field of training and skill development, teaching folks to do all kinds of things that we actually want them to be able to do well.  I'm 100% in favor of actually seeing a study like this done.

Also, another important distinction, I would definitely expect the person to become more proficient in the martial art they are studying.  So, a guy who trains 3 or 5 years in ninjutsu will certainly be better at ninjutsu than someone who never trains.  But would that translate to fighting ability?  I don't expect that it would.

And lastly, I think the training does matter.  So, better training will result in more reliable transfer of skill between practicing fighting skills and actually fighting.  I just don't think excellent training will even come close to the applied fitness guys (parkour, crossfit, etc).  Fighting performance would clearly be group 1 (competition), group 3 (functional fitness), then...  given enough time and an excellent training program... maybe group 2 (non-competition) over group 4 (control)?


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> Depends on what you mean by "superior".
> 
> What is clear is that sports martial arts offer an excellent way to safely apply techniques. That's pretty much unquestionable. And some TMA schools lack just that.
> 
> That said, depending on your benchmark, the answer might change.
> 
> Would Khabib beat my instructors if he walked into my dojo? Yes.
> Would he win if he were their age? Don't know.
> Would he fare better than them if there were weapons and/or multiple opponents involved? Don't know.
> I've met masters who could easily break baseball bats with a kick. Would those guys be able to hit Khabib with that? Don't know. Would Khabib get hurt if he got caught by that? Don't know, but don't want to try it myself.
> Would a karate master be able to maim Khabib with an eye/throat/groin strike coming from a weird angle (= one not used in MMA because regular strikes don't do much damage from there)? Don't know.
> I've been on the receiving end of a lua technique that consists in throwing someone from a single or double "nipple grip" (like literally grabbing your nipple area and using it as if gripping your gi). Besides hurting a lot, it's a position that may not naturally happen in grappling, especially no-gi/MMA. And it's pretty surprising. Would it be enough to surprise and beat Khabib? Don't know.
> 
> How about we factor in the effects of competition? Would a punch-drunk boxer be "superior" to a healthy tai chi guy? How about someone who got a back injury from bad ukemi in competition? Muhammad Ali was an exceptional fighter for a few years but got diagnosed with Parkinson's disease at only 42. Was he superior to the master who could throw me around with ease in his 60's, a week before dying from late-stage cancer?
> 
> How about cross-training? Even if you train purely under one "karate" instructor, he may train you in light of his former judo experience.



Obviously I'm talking about a competitor at their prime, not someone with a debilitating illness or disease.

Would someone being able to break a baseball bat with their kick even be able to hit Khabib? I doubt it. I can break a brick with a downward punch. Could I sock a professional boxer in the nose with enough force to break it? Maybe. Would that pro boxer allow me to do that before he knocked my head off? Nope.

Would someone be able to submit Khabib with a nipple twist? I doubt it. Would some random TMA guy be able to beat Khabib by doing dirty tricks on him? Yeah, I doubt that too.

Why? Because a professional fighter like Khabib is simply better at fighting because he's fighting all the time. Your argument here is like saying Bob from the office can hit a homerun in Softball, so he can hit a homerun if a major league pitcher throws a fastball at him. Is there a chance he could do it? Sure. Is he likely to do it? No.




> Those can be acquired by TMA practitioners as well. And yeah some traditional arts have a wider technical palette than, say, boxing.



A wider technical palette doesn't necessarily translate into a better pool of techniques to utilize. For example, while Boxing has 5 techniques, its still considered one of the best striking MAs to practice. Meanwhile, there's plenty of TMAs that teach a lot of stuff, but teaches none of it very well.

*



			The style vs style debate has too many variables to reach a definitive conclusion. Also I find the "TMA" vs "sports" dichotomy artificial.
		
Click to expand...

*
Well to be fair, this really wasn't a style vs style debate, it was more along the lines of schools with a "full contact" competitive aspect tend to have an elite tier of exponents.

Beyond that, I think its fairly easy to reach a definitive conclusion. Again, we do see TMA exponents not fairing too well in exhibition fights against sport/competitive fighters. Again, the exact same thing happens in the MMA-based arts where you have the standard practitioners and the elite fighters. As I said before, a standard practitioner like myself would get eaten alive by an elite fighter in my MA. Why would a TMA practitioner who more than likely practices at the same level I do fare any better?
*



			Also, sports MAists may have more possibilities to practice professionnally, especially at elite level and in popular sports. In aikido, for example, there's generally a dearth of professional practitioners.
		
Click to expand...

*
So when you consider that situation, which art would have the better pool of practitioners? If people are just doing their thing with no objective standard, how do we know what's a "good" example of the art in question? For example, no one in the world of Bjj would say that the winner of ADCC champion is a bad grappler. If someone asks me who the best Bjj practitioners in the world are, I just look at the competitors in that event.

What could we use as such a standard in Aikido?


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> Also, another important distinction, I would definitely expect the person to become more proficient in the martial art they are studying.  So, a guy who trains 3 or 5 years in ninjutsu will certainly be better at ninjutsu than someone who never trains.  But would that translate to fighting ability?  I don't expect that it would.



Everyone is mean to Ninjutsu......


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Everyone is mean to Ninjutsu......


LOL.  It's the ginger of martial arts...

But to say out loud, nothing wrong at all with training ninjutsu, if that's what you like.  While you may be learning how to be a terrific ninja, I just don't think you're learning how to fight.  And to ground this in the actual point, if you are in a situation where you must fight, your chances of successfully transferring your ninja skills to this new context is very low.  You may end up being no more capable of yourself than someone who has never trained in a martial art.


----------



## Steve

O'Malley said:


> Depends on what you mean by "superior".
> 
> What is clear is that sports martial arts offer an excellent way to safely apply techniques. That's pretty much unquestionable. And some TMA schools lack just that.
> 
> That said, depending on your benchmark, the answer might change.
> 
> Would Khabib beat my instructors if he walked into my dojo? Yes.
> Would he win if he were their age? Don't know.
> Would he fare better than them if there were weapons and/or multiple opponents involved? Don't know.
> I've met masters who could easily break baseball bats with a kick. Would those guys be able to hit Khabib with that? Don't know. Would Khabib get hurt if he got caught by that? Don't know, but don't want to try it myself.
> Would a karate master be able to maim Khabib with an eye/throat/groin strike coming from a weird angle (= one not used in MMA because regular strikes don't do much damage from there)? Don't know.
> I've been on the receiving end of a lua technique that consists in throwing someone from a single or double "nipple grip" (like literally grabbing your nipple area and using it as if gripping your gi). Besides hurting a lot, it's a position that may not naturally happen in grappling, especially no-gi/MMA. And it's pretty surprising. Would it be enough to surprise and beat Khabib? Don't know.
> 
> How about we factor in the effects of competition? Would a punch-drunk boxer be "superior" to a healthy tai chi guy? How about someone who got a back injury from bad ukemi in competition? Muhammad Ali was an exceptional fighter for a few years but got diagnosed with Parkinson's disease at only 42. Was he superior to the master who could throw me around with ease in his 60's, a week before dying from late-stage cancer?
> 
> How about cross-training? Even if you train purely under one "karate" instructor, he may train you in light of his former judo experience.
> 
> 
> 
> Those can be acquired by TMA practitioners as well. And yeah some traditional arts have a wider technical palette than, say, boxing.
> 
> *The style vs style debate has too many variables to reach a definitive conclusion. Also I find the "TMA" vs "sports" dichotomy artificial.
> 
> What I can agree on, though, is that sports MA typically emphasise applicability in a live situation and that competition encourages innovation and quality control. Those are very valuable elements for any martial artist who trains with "fighting" in mind.
> 
> Also, sports MAists may have more possibilities to practice professionnally, especially at elite level and in popular sports. In aikido, for example, there's generally a dearth of professional practitioners.*
> 
> Edit: I realised that it might look as if I'm saying that TMA is superior to combat sports. It's not my opinion, cf. bold part.
> 
> Edit2: additions.


You make some good points, and as a thought exercise, we can consider how individual instructors or elite athletes would fare.  The danger here, though, is to put undue focus on exceptional performance within the style.  If we're evaluating a training modality, we might be able to glean some useful information by pitting the top echelon against each other.

If the goal is to really get a sense of how effective one modality is vs another (e.g., non-competitive vs competitive), we really need to look at the non-exceptional students.  The white collar couch potatoes who start off unconsciously incompetent.  Then we can evaluate how long it takes for them to be proficient.  What's the ceiling for their skill development?  How reliably and repeatable are the results (in other words, how much is training vs individual aptitude?)  Are they building practical and reliable skills?

Again, the proof is in the pudding.  Take a bunch of out of shape computer programmers.  Put half in a good "sport" school and half in a good "tma" school, and the results would speak for themselves. I don't think this is even a question, really.  I expect we can all agree that after any given amount of time, the sport students will be more skilled.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> LOL.  It's the ginger of martial arts...
> 
> But to say out loud, nothing wrong at all with training ninjutsu, if that's what you like.  While you may be learning how to be a terrific ninja, I just don't think you're learning how to fight.  And to ground this in the actual point, if you are in a situation where you must fight, your chances of successfully transferring your ninja skills to this new context is very low.  You may end up being no more capable of yourself than someone who has never trained in a martial art.



Well to be fair, there are Ninjutsu schools incorporating Bjj now and claiming that it is the ancient Earth elemental style from one of their katas. So I suppose there's some hope there....


----------



## Buka

_"Pushing this up a notch, if Jon Jones or Khabib walked into your dojo, could your instructor beat them in a fight? Bringing this down a notch would your traditional karate instructor be able to stand toe to toe against an amateur boxer?"_

I've never had a traditional Karate instructor, so I probably should exclude myself from the question. But that's no fun, especially on a Monday.

With Khabib or Jones, yeah, I think a couple of my teachers would do alright. (but then, I've had instructors on their level.) But I do know one thing, there would be no shortage of students in the dojo willing to fight with them. Everyone loved fighting and training with people of their incredible skill. How could you not? I mean, duh.

Amateur boxer - in what, boxing? Some of the guys would handle them, some might not. But that would be in boxing only. In free fighting the amateur boxer would either be looking for help - or for the door.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> easily break a base ball bat with their kick,???  now that id like to see


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


>


depends on the quality of the timber,  and he is aiming at the thin bit and it looks suspious thin


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> depends on the quality of the timber,  and he is aiming at the thin bit and it looks suspious thin



Reject reality and insert your own.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> Also, another important distinction, I would definitely expect the person to become more proficient in the martial art they are studying. So, a guy who trains 3 or 5 years in ninjutsu will certainly be better at ninjutsu than someone who never trains. But would that translate to fighting ability? I don't expect that it would.


I can’t pretend to have the data that a large scale study would provide, but I can offer my personal experience.

I trained “ninjutsu” (Bujinkan) for about 8 years before moving on to arts like BJJ and Muay Thai and I am very sure that I was a better fighter as a result of that training than I would have been if I had sat on my butt and not done any training during that time. (And yes, I did get into a few scuffles which served to calibrate where my abilities were at.)

Was I as good a fighter as I could have been if I had spent that time training in a more functional system? Certainly not.

Was I as good a fighter as I thought I was before I had those various scuffles as reality checks? Nope.

Was I as good a fighter as I could have been if I had spent those years on strength training and playing some non-martial sport to develop my overall athleticism instead of training ninjutsu? Maybe, maybe not. Knowing my personal interests and motivation, I don’t know if any non-martial pursuit would have captured my interest well enough to drive me to put in the work.

Bear in mind that I started out as an extremely unathletic, uncoordinated, scrawny, physically timid bookworm who was completely out of touch with my own body and couldn’t hold my own in a pillow fight. My training in the Bujinkan greatly increased my balance, coordination, body awareness and control, got me used to a greater degree of physical contact than I was used to, increased my pain tolerance, got me more psychologically conditioned to seeing punches and kicks coming at me, taught me some valid tactical concepts and principles, and also a few workable techniques. 

It’s true that someone who grew up playing contact sports and getting into fights might have gotten all those benefits to a greater degree than I did from my Bujinkan training, but I’m not comparing myself to them. I’m comparing myself after my training to myself before my training. 

In addition, I think my Bujinkan experience was helpful as I moved on to other arts - the curriculum does include some widely applicable concepts, even if the training methods are ... suboptimal.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Reject reality and insert your own.


ive spent quite a lot of time considering wood technology,  and there is as much differance between varius timber as there is between, cardboard and wrought iron,


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> _"Pushing this up a notch, if Jon Jones or Khabib walked into your dojo, could your instructor beat them in a fight? Bringing this down a notch would your traditional karate instructor be able to stand toe to toe against an amateur boxer?"_
> 
> I've never had a traditional Karate instructor, so I probably should exclude myself from the question. But that's no fun, especially on a Monday.
> 
> With Khabib or Jones, yeah, I think a couple of my teachers would do alright. (but then, I've had instructors on their level.) But I do know one thing, there would be no shortage of students in the dojo willing to fight with them. Everyone loved fighting and training with people of their incredible skill. How could you not? I mean, duh.
> 
> Amateur boxer - in what, boxing? Some of the guys would handle them, some might not. But that would be in boxing only. In free fighting the amateur boxer would either be looking for help - or for the door.


I don't doubt it, Buka, but you brought to mind a question.  Is the training today the same as it was 20 years ago?  40?  I mean, I know it was different in BJJ... even from the early 2000s to now.  


Tony Dismukes said:


> I can’t pretend to have the data that a large scale study would provide, but I can offer my personal experience.
> 
> I trained “ninjutsu” (Bujinkan) for about 8 years before moving on to arts like BJJ and Muay Thai and I am very sure that I was a better fighter as a result of that training than I would have been if I had sat on my butt and not done any training during that time. (And yes, I did get into a few scuffles which served to calibrate where my abilities were at.)
> 
> Was I as good a fighter as I could have been if I had spent that time training in a more functional system? Certainly not.
> 
> Was I as good a fighter as I thought I was before I had those various scuffles as reality checks? Nope.
> 
> Was I as good a fighter as I could have been if I had spent those years on strength training and playing some non-martial sport to develop my overall athleticism instead of training ninjutsu? Maybe, maybe not. Knowing my personal interests and motivation, I don’t know if any non-martial pursuit would have captured my interest well enough to drive me to put in the work.
> 
> Bear in mind that I started out as an extremely unathletic, uncoordinated, scrawny, physically timid bookworm who was completely out of touch with my own body and couldn’t hold my own in a pillow fight. My training in the Bujinkan greatly increased my balance, coordination, body awareness and control, got me used to a greater degree of physical contact than I was used to, increased my pain tolerance, got me more psychologically conditioned to seeing punches and kicks coming at me, taught me some valid tactical concepts and principles, and also a few workable techniques.
> 
> It’s true that someone who grew up playing contact sports and getting into fights might have gotten all those benefits to a greater degree than I did from my Bujinkan training, but I’m not comparing myself to them. I’m comparing myself after my training to myself before my training.
> 
> In addition, I think my Bujinkan experience was helpful as I moved on to other arts - the curriculum does include some widely applicable concepts, even if the training methods are ... suboptimal.


This is very helpful, and I appreciate your comments.  You have a unique perspective having trained for so long in Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu and then into other arts and training models. 

Are you interested in sponsoring my study?  Just kidding, of course.  I'm not qualified to do this, but this is one of two studies I would genuinely love to see done.


----------



## Bee Brian

Hanzou said:


> This was a question asked in my other thread and I thought it warranted its own thread. There is a slight disdain for sports and competition among traditionalists within the martial arts. It even pops up in my style Brazilian Jiujitsu, despite the fact that what brought Bjj to prominence was sport and competition. There is a group of people within Bjj who dislike what competition has done to the art, and like to hammer in the idea that sport dilutes the self defense aspect of the art.
> 
> While there is some merit to that point, there is another inescapable fact; Competition and sport (particularly MMA) have kept Bjj "honest" in that it forces the style to never drift too far into having its own head up its ****. For example, after Bjj exploded on the scene via the early UFCs, numerous other grappling systems emerged to try to supplant it as the main grappling art of the emerging sport. At first, Bjj exponents (mainly the Gracies) pushed a sort of purity message and refused to embrace other grappling styles, saying that their system of grappling was superior to all others. However, after the Gracies got beat by grapplers who had cross-trained in Bjj, other Bjj schools embraced other grappling forms. Over two decades later, it would be hard to argue that Bjj isn't an overall better martial art than it was when it first exploded on the scene in the 1990s.
> 
> Beyond general MA improvement, it would be a bit silly to believe that your average MA hobbyist is a better martial artist than a professional fighter. Again, when I look into my own martial art, I look at guys like Ryan Gordon, Keenan Cornelius, JT Torres, Marcelo Garcia, Ryan Hall, etc. and recognize that they would absolutely destroy me. There are videos of competitive Bjj players who roll against entire schools and submit students in that school within a matter of minutes if not seconds. Even the black belt instructors are easily dealt with, and considering that I would struggle with the average Bjj black belt, the fact that these people are several magnitudes better than them is something to think about.
> 
> Which brings us back to the general question; Are competitive sport martial artists superior to non competitive martial artists? I simply can't see how they aren't. Beyond grappling, look at the various showcases of traditional Chinese martial artists going up against MMA and sport fighters. Universally, the traditional martial artists lose, and many of the people they lose to aren't even professional fighters. Pushing this up a notch, if Jon Jones or Khabib walked into your dojo, could your instructor beat them in a fight? Bringing this down a notch would your traditional karate instructor be able to stand toe to toe against an amateur boxer? These are questions to consider because we continue to run across people who say that since their style includes wrist locks, throws, kicks, and kata, they have an advantage over a boxer because "the boxer only has punches".
> 
> I would argue that the boxer has more than punches. They have conditioning, durability, endurance, and fighting experience.
> 
> Anyway, I'm interested in your thoughts.



Okay I see it clearly now after reading your post. lol. I thought you meant better in every way when you used the word "superior", but I see you are only referring to fighting ability.

Yes dude, they are. This field we call martial arts is a field of violence and physical supremacy. The ones who come out on top in fights are the superior ones. It's just that simple.

Modern MMA is the best thing we can have of style versus style. We once had gladiatorial boxing matches in Rome, bare-knuckle boxing in Britain, Vale Tudo in Brazil, and bare-knuckle boxing through Bare-Knuckle FC. None of those are as good as actual MMA. And if MMA dictates that kickboxers and wrestlers can beat the living hell out of traditionalists, then kickboxers and wrestlers are the best.

To me, it's that simple. Everything else is a lie. This is not anime or a hollywood movie.


----------



## Bee Brian

AceVentura said:


> Here we go....



I rated this "informative" because I can.


----------



## dvcochran

Tony Dismukes said:


> I can’t pretend to have the data that a large scale study would provide, but I can offer my personal experience.
> 
> I trained “ninjutsu” (Bujinkan) for about 8 years before moving on to arts like BJJ and Muay Thai and I am very sure that I was a better fighter as a result of that training than I would have been if I had sat on my butt and not done any training during that time. (And yes, I did get into a few scuffles which served to calibrate where my abilities were at.)
> 
> Was I as good a fighter as I could have been if I had spent that time training in a more functional system? Certainly not.
> 
> Was I as good a fighter as I thought I was before I had those various scuffles as reality checks? Nope.
> 
> Was I as good a fighter as I could have been if I had spent those years on strength training and playing some non-martial sport to develop my overall athleticism instead of training ninjutsu? Maybe, maybe not. Knowing my personal interests and motivation, I don’t know if any non-martial pursuit would have captured my interest well enough to drive me to put in the work.
> 
> Bear in mind that I started out as an extremely unathletic, uncoordinated, scrawny, physically timid bookworm who was completely out of touch with my own body and couldn’t hold my own in a pillow fight. My training in the Bujinkan greatly increased my balance, coordination, body awareness and control, got me used to a greater degree of physical contact than I was used to, increased my pain tolerance, got me more psychologically conditioned to seeing punches and kicks coming at me, taught me some valid tactical concepts and principles, and also a few workable techniques.
> 
> It’s true that someone who grew up playing contact sports and getting into fights might have gotten all those benefits to a greater degree than I did from my Bujinkan training, but I’m not comparing myself to them. I’m comparing myself after my training to myself before my training.
> 
> In addition, I think my Bujinkan experience was helpful as I moved on to other arts - the curriculum does include some widely applicable concepts, even if the training methods are ... suboptimal.



I really do not think that could have been better said. Good on you, mate.


----------



## Hanzou

Bee Brian said:


> Okay I see it clearly now after reading your post. lol. I thought you meant better in every way when you used the word "superior", but I see you are only referring to fighting ability.



Is there another criteria we should be applying to the *Martial* Arts?


----------



## Bee Brian

Hanzou said:


> Is there another criteria we should be applying to the *Martial* Arts?



Yeah. Morality. A bully is a terrible martial artist compared to a kind-hearted newbie.

In EVERY arena of life, the criteria of ethics will always be there. I haven't discovered WHY, but it's always included.


----------



## Hanzou

Bee Brian said:


> Yeah. Morality. A bully is a terrible martial artist compared to a kind-hearted newbie.
> 
> In EVERY arena of life, the criteria of ethics will always be there. I haven't discovered WHY, but it's always included.



How silly. Ethics and morality exists in arts like Bjj and MMA as well. I would honestly say that there's more ethics and morality in those styles than in traditional styles. Why? Because the hard sparring that forces submission tends to evaporate egos and bullying rather quickly.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> Are you interested in sponsoring my study? Just kidding, of course. I'm not qualified to do this, but this is one of two studies I would genuinely love to see done.


One of the fundamental theoretical difficulties in ever doing such a study (aside from the obvious practical issues) is the problem of selection bias.

Since we aren't amoral dictators who can draft experimental subjects and randomly assign them into test groups and force them to train their assigned art for a specified number of hours per week before mandated combat tests, we are limited to observing the outcomes for people who have selected particular schools and arts and training regimens.

The typical result is that potential martial arts students who are _already_ athletic, aggressive, motivated, and mentally tough are more likely to sign up for competitive combat sports or other martial arts training which encompasses that sort of intensity in training and skill testing. Students who lack those attributes are more likely to be drawn to schools where they won't encounter that same kind of pressure. As a result - even if the training in the two groups was equally effective for developing combative skill (it's not, but let's just imagine for the moment), the second category of schools would on average produce worst fighters just because their students started out at a lower level.

(BTW - I believe this is the secret of some top fighting gyms - it's not that the coaching is necessarily always that much better than other gyms so much as they recruit the most talented athletes to begin with, focus on them, and then the success of those athletes attracts more top talent. I think the real test of an instructor is what they can do with someone who is naturally untalented.)

Getting back to my own experience, I think one other benefit I got from my time in the Bujinkan is that it gradually toughened me up to the point where I could jump into more challenging martial endeavors without being completely overwhelmed. Obviously, not everybody needs that kind of remedial development, but it was useful for me.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> One of the fundamental theoretical difficulties in ever doing such a study (aside from the obvious practical issues) is the problem of selection bias.
> 
> Since we aren't amoral dictators who can draft experimental subjects and randomly assign them into test groups and force them to train their assigned art for a specified number of hours per week before mandated combat tests, we are limited to observing the outcomes for people who have selected particular schools and arts and training regimens.
> 
> The typical result is that potential martial arts students who are _already_ athletic, aggressive, motivated, and mentally tough are more likely to sign up for competitive combat sports or other martial arts training which encompasses that sort of intensity in training and skill testing. Students who lack those attributes are more likely to be drawn to schools where they won't encounter that same kind of pressure. As a result - even if the training in the two groups was equally effective for developing combative skill (it's not, but let's just imagine for the moment), the second category of schools would on average produce worst fighters just because their students started out at a lower level.
> 
> (BTW - I believe this is the secret of some top fighting gyms - it's not that the coaching is necessarily always that much better than other gyms so much as they recruit the most talented athletes to begin with, focus on them, and then the success of those athletes attracts more top talent. I think the real test of an instructor is what they can do with someone who is naturally untalented.)
> 
> Getting back to my own experience, I think one other benefit I got from my time in the Bujinkan is that it gradually toughened me up to the point where I could jump into more challenging martial endeavors without being completely overwhelmed. Obviously, not everybody needs that kind of remedial development, but it was useful for me.


Is that completely true though?  BJJ in particular seems to appeal to a broad spectrum of people including a lot of awkward, unathletic, nerdy types.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

*Are competitive Sport Martial Artists superior?*

If you have taken down 1000 guys on the mat, the chance that you can take down the 1001 guy will be high (it's not that easy to accumulate 1000 knock down record).

We all want to develop some door guarding skill through our life time. The ring/mat testing is the only way to develop such skill.

Also competition is fun. 

no competition = no fun.


----------



## dvcochran

Tony Dismukes said:


> (BTW - I believe this is the secret of some top fighting gyms - it's not that the coaching is necessarily always that much better than other gyms so much as they* recruit the most talented *athletes to begin with, focus on them, and then the success of those athletes attracts more top talent. I think the real test of an instructor is what they can do with someone who is naturally untalented.)


When you say 'recruit the most talented' I tend to think the rest of your post better describes the recruiting method. In other words a gym that is really active, progressive, training hard, and presenting good fighters naturally brings in a better crop consistently.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Is there another criteria we should be applying to the *Martial* Arts?


This question has been asked so many times in the past. I can repeat the answer here without even missing a single word.

A: Is there another criteria we should be applying to the *Martial* Arts?
B: MA training is more than just for fighting.
A: What will that be?
B: Performance, health, self-cultivation, inner peace, culture study, de-escalation, world peace, ...
A: How about fighting?
B: If you care about fight, go buy yourself a gun.
A: ...


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> The typical result is that potential martial arts students who are _already_ athletic, aggressive, motivated, and mentally tough are more likely to sign up for competitive combat sports or other martial arts training which encompasses that sort of intensity in training and skill testing. Students who lack those attributes are more likely to be drawn to schools where they won't encounter that same kind of pressure. As a result - even if the training in the two groups was equally effective for developing combative skill (it's not, but let's just imagine for the moment), the second category of schools would on average produce worst fighters just because their students started out at a lower level.



I think that may be more culture than system.

And that may be the case because the stereotype of combat sports are for these alpha style males.

But I think if you change the culture your less traditionally athletic person is quite happy to work his guts out.

I mean look at Spartan races. There was this school of thought that women can't do obstacle courses. Because of athletic ability.

Yet under a different culture. Soccer mums are going out and killing it.


----------



## skribs

Hanzou said:


> This was a question asked in my other thread and I thought it warranted its own thread. There is a slight disdain for sports and competition among traditionalists within the martial arts. It even pops up in my style Brazilian Jiujitsu, despite the fact that what brought Bjj to prominence was sport and competition. There is a group of people within Bjj who dislike what competition has done to the art, and like to hammer in the idea that sport dilutes the self defense aspect of the art.
> 
> While there is some merit to that point, there is another inescapable fact; Competition and sport (particularly MMA) have kept Bjj "honest" in that it forces the style to never drift too far into having its own head up its ****. For example, after Bjj exploded on the scene via the early UFCs, numerous other grappling systems emerged to try to supplant it as the main grappling art of the emerging sport. At first, Bjj exponents (mainly the Gracies) pushed a sort of purity message and refused to embrace other grappling styles, saying that their system of grappling was superior to all others. However, after the Gracies got beat by grapplers who had cross-trained in Bjj, other Bjj schools embraced other grappling forms. Over two decades later, it would be hard to argue that Bjj isn't an overall better martial art than it was when it first exploded on the scene in the 1990s.
> 
> Beyond general MA improvement, it would be a bit silly to believe that your average MA hobbyist is a better martial artist than a professional fighter. Again, when I look into my own martial art, I look at guys like Ryan Gordon, Keenan Cornelius, JT Torres, Marcelo Garcia, Ryan Hall, etc. and recognize that they would absolutely destroy me. There are videos of competitive Bjj players who roll against entire schools and submit students in that school within a matter of minutes if not seconds. Even the black belt instructors are easily dealt with, and considering that I would struggle with the average Bjj black belt, the fact that these people are several magnitudes better than them is something to think about.
> 
> Which brings us back to the general question; Are competitive sport martial artists superior to non competitive martial artists? I simply can't see how they aren't. Beyond grappling, look at the various showcases of traditional Chinese martial artists going up against MMA and sport fighters. Universally, the traditional martial artists lose, and many of the people they lose to aren't even professional fighters. Pushing this up a notch, if Jon Jones or Khabib walked into your dojo, could your instructor beat them in a fight? Bringing this down a notch would your traditional karate instructor be able to stand toe to toe against an amateur boxer? These are questions to consider because we continue to run across people who say that since their style includes wrist locks, throws, kicks, and kata, they have an advantage over a boxer because "the boxer only has punches".
> 
> I would argue that the boxer has more than punches. They have conditioning, durability, endurance, and fighting experience.
> 
> Anyway, I'm interested in your thoughts.



A couple things to consider.  First off, recognize that all arts have weaknesses.  We tend to look at things like boxing vs. taekwondo and see that one punches better and one kicks better.  If a boxer wants to learn how to kick, he takes an art that teaches kicks (such as kickboxing, muay thai, TKD, or Karate).  If a TKD guy wants to learn groundfighting, he'll take wrestling or BJJ.

The same applies to self-defense vs. sport.  Both have their pluses and minuses.  Self-defense arts tend to do less sparring and pressure testing than sport arts (if done at all).  However, they often have a better understanding of things that aren't available in the ring.  With many sport arts, a lot of what you learn is only going to be useful against someone else trained in *that art*.  That art becomes the world, and it's hard to see techniques and situations existing outside of that world.  It's even harder to see something outside of MMA.  MMA is not a perfect simulation of a real fight, even though it is the best simulation we have.

That's not to say you *need *to cross-train from self-defense to sport or vice-versa.  However, you do need to pressure test and spar with your self-defense ideas.  And if self-defense is a training goal, then you need to take your sport training and think "what if X situation came up, how would I deal with it?"  It's always better to have trained for something than to figure it out in the middle of a fight for your life!

As to the other question: barely anyone is going to be better than a professional fighter.  A casual MMA fighter or BJJ fighter going 2 days a week isn't going to compete with someone who trains several hours a day because they are paid to.  It doesn't matter what art you choose, you're going to lose.  Many people could probably train as much as a professional fighter and still not be that good, because some people just don't seem to get it.  

"Who would win" quite often falls into a "what rules are we fighting by?" question.  I could crush most boxers in a Taekwondo tournament.  Probably even professional boxers (assuming that's all they've trained).  Most boxers would crush me in a boxing tournament.  They'd probably have an edge on me in MMA, since punches are easier to apply.

Let's look at Hapkido (my other art).  If I were to use my Hapkido against a boxer (who only ever trained in boxing), if I could get inside his range, I'm not sure what he'd be able to do.  He'd have a shot while I'm closing into range, but if that doesn't do the job, I don't think he'll have much of any recourse (as is the case when a striker gets grabbed).  Have I tried to close in on boxers?  No.  This is just supposition (although something that would be fun to test if I had time and knew a boxer).  

Now, if he's cross-trained into a grappling art, it would be much more difficult to take advantage of the clinch/trap range and my take-downs and joint locks.  Of course, if he's cross-training, I want to cross-train, too.  I'll cross-train something more sport focused to give me the edge again.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> The same applies to self-defense vs. sport. Both have their pluses and minuses. Self-defense arts tend to do less sparring and pressure testing than sport arts (if done at all). However, they often have a better understanding of things that aren't available in the ring. With many sport arts, a lot of what you learn is only going to be useful against someone else trained in *that art*. That art becomes the world, and it's hard to see techniques and situations existing outside of that world. It's even harder to see something outside of MMA. MMA is not a perfect simulation of a real fight, even though it is the best simulation we have.



Not really unless you are comparing 2 systems that are pretty much on par with each other.

And sport systems are just easier to gauge if they work because it is obvious when they don't.

It isn't obvious when self defence doesn't work.

Because this.

"Have I tried to close in on boxers? No. This is just supposition (although something that would be fun to test if I had time and knew a boxer)."


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This question has been asked so many times in the past. I can repeat the answer here without even missing a single word.
> 
> A: Is there another criteria we should be applying to the *Martial* Arts?
> B: MA training is more than just for fighting.
> A: What will that be?
> B: Performance, health, self-cultivation, inner peace, culture study, de-escalation, world peace, ...
> A: How about fighting?
> B: If you care about fight, go buy yourself a gun.
> A: ...



Yeah, but pretty much every martial art offers those benefits in varying degrees, even the more sporty ones. The universal reason people enter MA is to learn how to fight or defend themselves. Also saying "buy a gun" doesn't really apply to every person. What if you're a teacher working in an inner city or rural school and you want to learn how to defend yourself in case one of the larger kids becomes violent? A gun doesn't solve your dilemma.


----------



## Hanzou

skribs said:


> A couple things to consider.  First off, recognize that all arts have weaknesses.  We tend to look at things like boxing vs. taekwondo and see that one punches better and one kicks better.  If a boxer wants to learn how to kick, he takes an art that teaches kicks (such as kickboxing, muay thai, TKD, or Karate).  If a TKD guy wants to learn groundfighting, he'll take wrestling or BJJ.
> 
> The same applies to self-defense vs. sport.  Both have their pluses and minuses.  Self-defense arts tend to do less sparring and pressure testing than sport arts (if done at all).  However, they often have a better understanding of things that aren't available in the ring.  With many sport arts, a lot of what you learn is only going to be useful against someone else trained in *that art*.  That art becomes the world, and it's hard to see techniques and situations existing outside of that world.  It's even harder to see something outside of MMA.  MMA is not a perfect simulation of a real fight, even though it is the best simulation we have.



I would argue that a martial art not teaching an aspect of fighting isn't necessarily a weakness. If the Boxer is fighting a Karateka and can enter and exit the latter's range at will while socking them in the face, then the lack of kicks really doesn't mean anything. Heck, I would argue that throwing a kick in certain situation is actually a rather dangerous thing, so a striking art focusing on punches while providing footwork, evasion, range, and fight experience is actually preferable to a martial art that teaches the entire kitchen sink but doesn't really allow you to master any particular aspect.



> That's not to say you *need *to cross-train from self-defense to sport or vice-versa.  However, you do need to pressure test and spar with your self-defense ideas.  And if self-defense is a training goal, then you need to take your sport training and think "what if X situation came up, how would I deal with it?"  It's always better to have trained for something than to figure it out in the middle of a fight for your life!



But isn't there "spill over" from sport to self defense? For example, if a female Bjj competitor has an excellent Guard, why wouldn't that female Bjj practitioner still have an excellent Guard when someone tries to rape her while she's on her back? Further, thanks to her competitive training, she's more than likely experienced having larger and heavier opponents on top of her trying to overpower her while she's on her back.



> As to the other question: barely anyone is going to be better than a professional fighter.  A casual MMA fighter or BJJ fighter going 2 days a week isn't going to compete with someone who trains several hours a day because they are paid to.  It doesn't matter what art you choose, you're going to lose.  Many people could probably train as much as a professional fighter and still not be that good, because some people just don't seem to get it.



I agree, but here's the difference; Bjj has an elite tier of known practitioners, so as you're studying Bjj, you begin to have a rather realistic metric of your personal skill level. You're getting submitted by your peers of equal rank, all of your peers are getting submitted by higher ranks, those higher ranks are getting submitted by the instructors and black belts, and when an elite Bjj grappler visits the school he easily submits all the instructors and black belts. 

If you're taking a martial art without that in place, you think your instructor could take on and beat anyone, because there's nothing in place to tell you otherwise. Thus that one time where you surprised your instructor with a kick to the stomach makes you believe that you're also an amazing fighter, even though you're not even close. That's the point. 



> "Who would win" quite often falls into a "what rules are we fighting by?" question.  I could crush most boxers in a Taekwondo tournament.  Probably even professional boxers (assuming that's all they've trained).  Most boxers would crush me in a boxing tournament.  They'd probably have an edge on me in MMA, since punches are easier to apply.
> 
> Let's look at Hapkido (my other art).  If I were to use my Hapkido against a boxer (who only ever trained in boxing), if I could get inside his range, I'm not sure what he'd be able to do.  He'd have a shot while I'm closing into range, but if that doesn't do the job, I don't think he'll have much of any recourse (as is the case when a striker gets grabbed).  Have I tried to close in on boxers?  No.  This is just supposition (although something that would be fun to test if I had time and knew a boxer).
> 
> Now, if he's cross-trained into a grappling art, it would be much more difficult to take advantage of the clinch/trap range and my take-downs and joint locks.  Of course, if he's cross-training, I want to cross-train, too.  I'll cross-train something more sport focused to give me the edge again.



Hmmm, I would try to close in on some boxers and test out your theory. I'd be very interested in your results.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Is there another criteria we should be applying to the *Martial* Arts?


well yes, the criteria the person had when they joined, the criteria that made them stay when they realised that they wernt the next Bruce lee

one must assume that people choosing a tma and then choosing to stay have a very different criteria than you


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> One of the fundamental theoretical difficulties in ever doing such a study (aside from the obvious practical issues) is the problem of selection bias.
> 
> Since we aren't amoral dictators who can draft experimental subjects and randomly assign them into test groups and force them to train their assigned art for a specified number of hours per week before mandated combat tests, we are limited to observing the outcomes for people who have selected particular schools and arts and training regimens.


Studies like this aren't unheard of.  Might pare it down to 100 participants or something like that, focus the scope on the first year, and conduct it in a single area, but the feedback would be interesting and informative.  We might even get some interesting data on attrition, if we tracked the participants for longer than a year.  This is, of course, just thinking through how we might do the study.  Would be cool...  I think we need to get an academic to make it happen. 


> The typical result is that potential martial arts students who are _already_ athletic, aggressive, motivated, and mentally tough are more likely to sign up for competitive combat sports or other martial arts training which encompasses that sort of intensity in training and skill testing.


I agree with your overt statement here.  But you seem to be implying that people who don't have those attributes avoid competitive sports, which I don't think is true at all.  On one hand, we have many, many examples of people who train in combat sports who do not have (or at least don't start with) those attributes.  You are exhibit A.  But we have a lot of women who train.  And we also have a lot of lawyers, doctors, scientists, network engineers, etc, of both genders.  I think it's a myth that combat sports people are all lunkheads.  So, while people who are athletic, aggressive, motivated, and mentally tough will gravitate toward combat sports, that is not to the exclusion of folks who do not.

I would actually flip your statement around to say that the level of athleticism is higher in combat sports because combat sports, like other sports, builds athleticism, motivates the participants, and promotes mental toughness.  When you walk into a gym, you can tell the new students from the veterans, but you can't really tell the lifelong athletes from the students who walked into the gym a year or 5 years ago with a beer gut and a little courage.

Now, all of that said, there are some schools out there that have a macho, aggressive culture.  I'd say that the culture is what keeps them that way, though, and not something intrinsic to competition or athleticism.  A lot of women train in BJJ, for example, but they don't tend to stay in schools where the instructor is a misogynist.


> Students who lack those attributes are more likely to be drawn to schools where they won't encounter that same kind of pressure. As a result - even if the training in the two groups was equally effective for developing combative skill (it's not, but let's just imagine for the moment), the second category of schools would on average produce worst fighters just because their students started out at a lower level.


Were I to actually conduct this study, the participants (whether it's 100, 400, or whatever) would be distributed among the groups at random.  So, the folks don't get to pick their group.  25% would be assigned to group 1, where they would train in some combative sport.  25% would be assigned to group 2, etc.

That said, you touch on a point I think is really important, which is the marketing that goes on. Non-competitive styles tend to bake in this notion that they can teach you to fight without the discomfort (physical, emotional, or mental) that comes with learning how to fight.  It's a sales ploy, and in large part it's this con that really angers me when we talk about "self defense."  





> (BTW - I believe this is the secret of some top fighting gyms - it's not that the coaching is necessarily always that much better than other gyms so much as they recruit the most talented athletes to begin with, focus on them, and then the success of those athletes attracts more top talent. I think the real test of an instructor is what they can do with someone who is naturally untalented.)
> 
> Getting back to my own experience, I think one other benefit I got from my time in the Bujinkan is that it gradually toughened me up to the point where I could jump into more challenging martial endeavors without being completely overwhelmed. Obviously, not everybody needs that kind of remedial development, but it was useful for me.


I can definitely relate to this.  It didn't take me quite as long.  I trained in WC for while in high school (a little over a year, I think), and was on the wrestling team.  But as an adult, I was looking for something to do with my kids.  I didn't know much about martial arts, and found myself in a "self defense oriented" school for a few years before I decided to move on.


----------



## skribs

@Hanzou There is spillover from sport to self-defense.  But a lot of sport folk just assume they can use their sport training in any situation.  That they'll just figure out how to deal with any differences in the actual engagement.

For example, I've had plenty of wrestlers or BJJ guys tell me that they would just use their wrestling or BJJ for knife defense. They wouldn't train it, but if someone attacked them with a knife that's what they'd do.  Clinching up is great for stopping power punches from landing, but might make it easier for them to stab you repeatedly. 

Same thing with eye gouges. A lot of MMA folk seem to think the only way of attacking someone's eyes is to throw a claw hand like a punch.  It's not.  I can attack your eyes any time my hands are near your head, because it doesn't require much force.

They also don't address things like awareness, deescalation, when to fight, what to do after the fight.  Because in a sport match, there is no deescalation. You know who your opponent is. And after the fight, it's over.  

These things can be covered by a sport art.  But lots of sport artists tend to quickly dismiss any situation outside of their sport (or outside of MMA) as being impossible to train for, unlikely to happen, or something they can handle easily without having trained for it.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> well yes, the criteria the person had when they joined, the criteria that made them stay when they realised that they wernt the next Bruce lee
> 
> one must assume that people choosing a tma and then choosing to stay have a very different criteria than you



It would be ridiculous to believe that TMA practitioners don't have the same reasons to be in their systems as practitioners in "fighting" MA schools. Both groups want to learn how to fight, whether that's for some eventual attacker in a back alley that may never come, or for their next opponent in the ring, it's all the same. 

If they just wanted fitness, culture, or whatever, they'd be doing something else.


----------



## Hanzou

skribs said:


> @Hanzou There is spillover from sport to self-defense.  But a lot of sport folk just assume they can use their sport training in any situation.  That they'll just figure out how to deal with any differences in the actual engagement.



I trained in a self defense oriented version of Karate, and the exact same mindset was there as well. That isn't something unique to sport styles.



> For example, I've had plenty of wrestlers or BJJ guys tell me that they would just use their wrestling or BJJ for knife defense. They wouldn't train it, but if someone attacked them with a knife that's what they'd do.  Clinching up is great for stopping power punches from landing, but might make it easier for them to stab you repeatedly.



Which honestly isn't as crazy as you'd think. It is doubtful that I would remember knife defenses during an adrenaline dump, but it's very likely that I would remember Bjj or Karate since I've done those MAs for so many years. I've taken some knife defense courses over the years, but I doubt I would remember them enough to stop a determined person from cutting me. Then we have the other issue where "self defense experts" say that the knife defense we've learned all these years are BS anyway. So yeah, I'll take my chances with Bjj.



> Same thing with eye gouges. A lot of MMA folk seem to think the only way of attacking someone's eyes is to throw a claw hand like a punch.  It's not.  I can attack your eyes any time my hands are near your head, because it doesn't require much force.



You're going to attempt to poke someone in the eye while they're socking you in the face, taking you to the ground, or have you in a strangle or joint lock?



> They also don't address things like awareness, deescalation, when to fight, what to do after the fight.  Because in a sport match, there is no deescalation. You know who your opponent is. And after the fight, it's over.



I was actually taught all of those things in Bjj. Honestly, I got more of that in Bjj than I did in karate.

As for sport, considering that there are rules and sportsmanship in competition, competitors tend to know when to let up, not to overly hurt their opponent, and to represent themselves and their school in a good light.



> These things can be covered by a sport art.  But lots of sport artists tend to quickly dismiss any situation outside of their sport (or outside of MMA) as being impossible to train for, unlikely to happen, or something they can handle easily without having trained for it.



Well again, look at the knife defense training. When you have a constant stream of "experts" saying that their version of knife defense is the truth and everyone else is BS, who are you to believe? I can go to 10 different schools teaching knife defense, and come out with 10 different ways of supposedly doing it. 

Let's be real; the only way to really train for knife defense is to have someone get a real knife and you defend against it. Considering that I don't want to get cut up and lose fingers just to learn something that I will probably never need, why would I waste my time?


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> It would be ridiculous to believe that TMA practitioners don't have the same reasons to be in their systems as practitioners in "fighting" MA schools. Both groups want to learn how to fight, whether that's for some eventual attacker in a back alley that may never come, or for their next opponent in the ring, it's all the same.
> 
> If they just wanted fitness, culture, or whatever, they'd be doing something else.


i dont think its ridiculous,  unless they are delusional then they will recogise the draw backs, allowing that they are not all terminally stupid, its fair to conclude a good % of their motivation must cone from something else,

ive recently joined a chess club, i have no exspectation of reaching even a modest standard, rather that i enjoy it , i meet new people and it passess an hour or two on pkeasantly on a wet cold and dark weds night,

i did two years at night school learnibg plumbing for much the same reason

its very wrong and misguided to pass your motives on to others and thhen judge them on it


----------



## skribs

@Hanzou I'm on mobile, so I'm having trouble selecting specific parts to quote, so bear with me.

Your post kind of confirms my point.

I do agree that it goes both ways.  But you're talking for one side, so I have to speak for the other to keep the conversation balanced.
Are those the only options, that I'm being strangled or punched?  I could ve in the clinch, effectively pinned as far as a wrestler is concerned, but able to reach your face.  A hand on the face isn't as big of a deal if you're not allowed to go for the eyes.
Why can't you continue to train knife defense so your memory is as good as with your other martial arts?
Competitors know when to let up...which could be dangerous in a fight.  Look at the time BJ Penn got KO'd in a drunken fight, then woke up and tackled the guy from behind.  Should you respect the tap or put an attacker to sleep?
Your post just confirms what I said about the attitude I hear a lot from sport folk. Justifications and excuses for why training for anything other than sport is either a waste of time or ineffective.

Yes, there are similar complaints from TMAs regarding sparring, pressure testing, competition, and crosstraining.  That's an equally bad position to have.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Let's be real; the only way to really train for knife defense is to have someone get a real knife and you defend against it. Considering that I don't want to get cut up and lose fingers just to learn something that I will probably never need, why would I waste my time?


I have a different opinion on this.  If you have some actual skill in grappling... as in, you (as an individual) have developed some reliable, applied expertise in grappling... you can do some experiments to layer in additional elements.  This idea that BJJ guys can't train knife defense is stupid, and yet we get this straw man all the time.  "BJJ/MMA/Wrestlers say all the time that they are impervious to being stabbed because their abs are so rock hard."   Okay, maybe not exactly that, but just as ridiculous.  

@Tony Dismukes has shared some really interesting experiments that he's done over the years, and there is real value in that.  It's useful because it's layered onto actual skill.  He has the expertise to evaluate his skills.  Or said the other way, a person who lacks grappling expertise is in no position to evaluate knife defense.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> i dont think its ridiculous,  unless they are delusional then they will recogise the draw backs, allowing that they are not all terminally stupid, its fair to conclude a good % of their motivation must cone from something else,



No, it is exactly because they are delusional and they don't recognize draw backs.

Do you think someone like George Dillman (who made people believe he could shoot spirit balls of ki from his hands and knock someone out from across the room) would be taken seriously in a MMA gym? He was taken quite seriously in a karate dojo. When you have that level of delusion, a person thinking that they can take an amateur or professional fighter with an eye poke is just a few dozen steps down the delusion ladder.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> I have a different opinion on this.  If you have some actual skill in grappling... as in, you (as an individual) have developed some reliable, applied expertise in grappling... you can do some experiments to layer in additional elements.  This idea that BJJ guys can't train knife defense is stupid, and yet we get this straw man all the time.  "BJJ/MMA/Wrestlers say all the time that they are impervious to being stabbed because their abs are so rock hard."   Okay, maybe not exactly that, but just as ridiculous.
> 
> @Tony Dismukes has shared some really interesting experiments that he's done over the years, and there is real value in that.  It's useful because it's layered onto actual skill.  He has the expertise to evaluate his skills.  Or said the other way, a person who lacks grappling expertise is in no position to evaluate knife defense.



I can see the logic behind that, considering that an experienced grappler would have knowledge of controlling the body. 

I do  think that people whip out the knife thing as a gotcha against the grapplers. It's like "Haha but what if I have a knife? Take that Jiujitsu!" Seemingly ignoring that they just admitted that they need a *concealed deadly weapon *to have a chance against your martial art. 

That's like one of the highest compliments a MA could receive.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> I can see the logic behind that, considering that an experienced grappler would have knowledge of controlling the body.
> 
> I do  think that people whip out the knife thing as a gotcha against the grapplers. It's like "Haha but what if I have a knife? Take that Jiujitsu!" Seemingly ignoring that they just admitted that they need a *concealed deadly weapon *to have a chance against your martial art.
> 
> That's like one of the highest compliments a MA could receive.


Totally.

I posted the picture below in another thread.  If you don't apply the skills, you just simply do not have the expertise to deconstruct the skill set, evaluate the skills, or apply the skills reliably within a different context.  This is just fundamentally how people build expertise.  So, if you are not professionally violent, and you don't compete, you just simply don't have a venue to apply your skills.  And if you don't apply your skills, what you are becoming an expert in is training. Your fighting skills remain theoretical.







The videos you've posted of grappling being shoehorned into other styles... the reason that happens is because people lack the foundational skill to analyze and evaluate the techniques.  It sounds or looks good to them and to their students, but to anyone with even a modest degree of experience, it looks silly and ridiculous.  When you consider Bloom's taxonomy and how people build skill, it's obvious why that occurs.

Edit:  Just to be clear, this is a universally applicable standard.  The Gracies, back in the day, had some pretty crappy striking.  They didn't feel like they needed it, and maybe for a while that was true.  But once some experienced strikers, with actual striking skills, began also developing real grappling skills, the landscape changed.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> No, it is exactly because they are delusional and they don't recognize draw backs.
> 
> Do you think someone like George Dillman (who made people believe he could shoot spirit balls of ki from his hands and knock someone out from across the room) would be taken seriously in a MMA gym? He was taken quite seriously in a karate dojo. When you have that level of delusion, a person thinking that they can take an amateur or professional fighter with an eye poke is just a few dozen steps down the delusion ladder.


that just comes across as you thinkibg any one with a different life view than you must be delusional, which is adiagnosable psychiatric condition.

that or youve carried out some extensive research and have the facts at your finger tips to make that claim

which is it?


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> that just comes across as you thinkibg any one with a different life view than you must be delusional, which is adiagnosable psychiatric condition.
> 
> that or youve carried out some extensive research and have the facts at your finger tips to make that claim
> 
> which is it?


if they get poked in the eye, they won't have much of a life view.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> that just comes across as you thinkibg any one with a different life view than you must be delusional, which is adiagnosable psychiatric condition.
> 
> that or youve carried out some extensive research and have the facts at your finger tips to make that claim
> 
> which is it?



If you believe that ki is a force that you can project across the room ala Street Fighter, or that eye poking is a sufficient form of anti-grappling, yes you are delusional. As I said, it's just different levels of delusion. It isn't a "different life view", it's common sense versus ignorance.

For example, do you think that grappling would become as essential as it has in NHB/professional fighting if all you had to do was eye poke your way out of a precarious hold?
And yes, eye poking was legal in some forms of NHB fighting.

As Bas Ruten once said; If you poke my eye, I'll snap your neck.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> If you believe that ki is a force that you can project across the room ala Street Fighter, or that eye poking is a sufficient form of anti-grappling, yes you are delusional. As I said, it's just different levels of delusion. It isn't a "different life view", it's common sense versus ignorance.
> 
> For example, do you think that grappling would become as essential as it has in NHB/professional fighting if all you had to do was eye poke your way out of a precarious hold?
> And yes, eye poking was legal in some forms of NHB fighting.
> 
> As Bas Ruten once said; If you poke my eye, I'll snap your neck.


but i dont and nether does any of of the hobby ma on here, but its us your attacking with a totally bogus strawman argument about chi balls

lets get down to fact, who exactly beklieves this and what % of the tma communityy do they represent, youve accused us all of delusion,, you better be able to back ut up with facts ?

you dont kbow do you,? your whole point is silly


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> but i dont and nether does any of of the hobby ma on here, but its us your attacking with a totally bogus strawman argument about chi balls



Just to make sure we're on the same page; I never said that anyone on here believes in Chi balls (though there have been people on this forum in the past who believe in no-touch ki stuff, and even defended Dillman's nonsense), I said that that level of delusion tends to occur in TMAs more so than in MMA. Further, I said that believing you can snuff out martial skill with "dirty tricks" is just another level of the same kind of delusion. Unfortunately, many believe that one.

The point is that both are a type of delusion that unfortunately tend to occur in TMAs.



> lets get down to fact, who exactly beklieves this and what % of the tma communityy do they represent, youve accused us all of delusion,, you better be able to back ut up with facts ?
> 
> you dont kbow do you,? your whole point is silly



I don't know the exact percentage, nor do I care to know. My point is that TMA allows that sort of stuff to germinate and grow because of their lack of checks on the skill level of their exponents.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Just to make sure we're on the same page; I never said that anyone on here believes in Chi balls (though there have been people on this forum in the past who believe in no-touch ki stuff, and even defended Dillman's nonsense), I said that that level of delusion tends to occur in TMAs more so than in MMA. Further, I said that believing you can snuff out martial skill with "dirty tricks" is just another level of the same kind of delusion. Unfortunately, many believe that one.
> 
> The point is that both are a type of delusion that unfortunately tend to occur in TMAs.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the exact percentage, nor do I care to know. My point is that TMA allows that sort of stuff to germinate and grow because of their lack of checks on the skill level of their exponents.


you were usibg it as a club to beat us with, i saw some mma guy the other night explainibg how the earth was flat and gravity doesnt exist, im not using that to sugest that all mma profesionals are brain dead morons,  or this means that delusion must run through out the profesional mma rank, that would just be dishonest and thats what your doing.

so with we rule out the complete idiots,what have you got that shows tmaers are more subject to delusion than the general poulation?


----------



## Hanzou

skribs said:


> @Hanzou I'm on mobile, so I'm having trouble selecting specific parts to quote, so bear with me.
> 
> Your post kind of confirms my point.
> 
> I do agree that it goes both ways.  But you're talking for one side, so I have to speak for the other to keep the conversation balanced.
> Are those the only options, that I'm being strangled or punched?  I could ve in the clinch, effectively pinned as far as a wrestler is concerned, but able to reach your face.  A hand on the face isn't as big of a deal if you're not allowed to go for the eyes.
> Why can't you continue to train knife defense so your memory is as good as with your other martial arts?
> Competitors know when to let up...which could be dangerous in a fight.  Look at the time BJ Penn got KO'd in a drunken fight, then woke up and tackled the guy from behind.  Should you respect the tap or put an attacker to sleep?
> Your post just confirms what I said about the attitude I hear a lot from sport folk. Justifications and excuses for why training for anything other than sport is either a waste of time or ineffective.
> 
> Yes, there are similar complaints from TMAs regarding sparring, pressure testing, competition, and crosstraining.  That's an equally bad position to have.




1. That's fair, I suppose. I don't know why you feel the need to take the contrarian view, but okay.

2. The other option would be to find an actual counter or escape. Attempting to go for an eye poke in an inferior position is good way to get punished. Also blinding a grappler is no guarantee that they're going to let up. I personally know a lot of guys who grapple with their eyes closed for example. You poking their eyes escalates the violence and you're still in a bad situation. Poking a striker in the eye would just piss them off, and I'm willing to bet that quite a few fighters with ring experience have had their eyes poked before in practice.

3. Because like I said, the only real knife defense I believe is you actually practicing with a live blade and cutting yourself up. I think I'll take my chances.

4. We know when to let up, and we know when to not let up. The thing is that if you're in some stupid drunken brawl with someone outside a bar, you can't snap limbs or choke people out at will, because there could be legal consquences. If someone is trying to murder you and your family and you have them in a chokehold, there's zero chance that you're going to let up on them. 

I'm sorry you think that my argument is that training for anything other than sport is a waste of time. That actually isn't my point at all.


----------



## skribs

Hanzou said:


> 1. That's fair, I suppose. I don't know why you feel the need to take the contrarian view, but okay.
> 
> 2. The other option would be to find an actual counter or escape. Attempting to go for an eye poke in an inferior position is good way to get punished. Also blinding a grappler is no guarantee that they're going to let up. I personally know a lot of guys who grapple with their eyes closed for example. You poking their eyes escalates the violence and you're still in a bad situation. Poking a striker in the eye would just piss them off, and I'm willing to bet that quite a few fighters with ring experience have had their eyes poked before in practice.
> 
> 3. Because like I said, the only real knife defense I believe is you actually practicing with a live blade and cutting yourself up. I think I'll take my chances.
> 
> 4. We know when to let up, and we know when to not let up. The thing is that if you're in some stupid drunken brawl with someone outside a bar, you can't snap limbs or choke people out at will, because there could be legal consquences. If someone is trying to murder you and your family and you have them in a chokehold, there's zero chance that you're going to let up on them.
> 
> I'm sorry you think that my argument is that training for anything other than sport is a waste of time. That actually isn't my point at all.



Excuses as to why other strategies are inferior or a waste of time. You're just proving my point about the narrow mindedness of the typical combat sport fighter.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> you were usibg it as a club to beat us with, i saw some mma guy the other night explainibg how the earth was flat and gravity doesnt exist, im not using that to sugest that all mma profesionals are brain dead morons,  or this means that delusion must run through out the profesional mma rank, that would just be dishonest and thats what your doing.



That's quite a false equivalency you got going there. Believing the Earth is flat doesn't really pertain to martial arts.

Believing that you can escape a grappling hold by biting someone in the junk because your sensei supposedly pulled it from an unrelated move in your kata/form does pertain to martial arts, and it's quite common.



> so with we rule out the complete idiots,what have you got that shows tmaers are more subject to delusion than the general poulation?



I've already addressed that with the Dillman question. I suppose you missed it so I'll ask again; 

Do you think someone like Dillman could thrive in the MMA community? Again, keep in mind, he thrived within the TMA community and had a fairly large following.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> 1. That's fair, I suppose. I don't know why you feel the need to take the contrarian view, but okay.
> 
> 2. The other option would be to find an actual counter or escape. Attempting to go for an eye poke in an inferior position is good way to get punished. Also blinding a grappler is no guarantee that they're going to let up. I personally know a lot of guys who grapple with their eyes closed for example. You poking their eyes escalates the violence and you're still in a bad situation. Poking a striker in the eye would just piss them off, and I'm willing to bet that quite a few fighters with ring experience have had their eyes poked before in practice.
> 
> 3. Because like I said, the only real knife defense I believe is you actually practicing with a live blade and cutting yourself up. I think I'll take my chances.
> 
> 4. We know when to let up, and we know when to not let up. The thing is that if you're in some stupid drunken brawl with someone outside a bar, you can't snap limbs or choke people out at will, because there could be legal consquences. If someone is trying to murder you and your family and you have them in a chokehold, there's zero chance that you're going to let up on them.
> 
> I'm sorry you think that my argument is that training for anything other than sport is a waste of time. That actually isn't my point at all.


this always seem to hinge on you beibg in an out of ring encoubter with a ring fighter, thats not impossible but unlikely in my exsperiance,


eye pokes work, they do, even better if you get both eyes together, fighting a blind man is substantial easier than one with 20 20 vision, they dont even know you left


----------



## Hanzou

skribs said:


> Excuses as to why other strategies are inferior or a waste of time. You're just proving my point about the narrow mindedness of the typical combat sport fighter.



Yes, attempting to poke out someone's eyes to get out of a hold is vastly inferior to actually learning how to escape a hold and actually putting yourself in a position to counter.

Crazy right?


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> this always seem to hinge on you beibg in an out of ring encoubter with a ring fighter, thats not impossible but unlikely in my exsperiance,



Not really. There's plenty of young men who have taken Boxing, Muay Thai, Kickboxing, MMA, and other ring sports who are not professional fighters, but have a great deal of ring time. Some places actually have these sports as scholastic options for athletes in secondary school and college.

So no, you don't have to be Conor McGregor to have experienced getting your eyes poked in a ring.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> That's quite a false equivalency you got going there. Believing the Earth is flat doesn't really pertain to martial arts.
> 
> Believing that you can escape a grappling hold by biting someone in the junk because your sensei supposedly pulled it from an unrelated move in your kata/form does pertain to martial arts, and it's quite common.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already addressed that with the Dillman question. I suppose you missed it so I'll ask again;
> 
> Do you think someone like Dillman could thrive in the MMA community? Again, keep in mind, he thrived within the TMA community and had a fairly large following.


your still flooggibg the same dead chi ball horse. its false equivency in just the same way as the flat earth is, and lets face it very few pro mmaers look like they would have earnt a good honest living if they hadent decided to get roid up and punch people for a living, it would be intrestibg to know what the mean iq is, it seems odd to sugest they have a greater intellectual capacity than tmaers, some of whom are extremly well qualified

i know nothibg about Dillon,  nothing at all, never heard of him till you decided to call me dulusion for not having the same objectives as you

why dont you tell me in what way he prospered in the tma community? and how that in any way relates to me


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> I don't doubt it, Buka, but you brought to mind a question.  Is the training today the same as it was 20 years ago?  40?  I mean, I know it was different in BJJ... even from the early 2000s to now.



I don't know, Steve, I think every era, every place, every group of people train a little differently. There's so many factors involved I don't know how to list them all. And like I've said before, everything was kind of handed to me on a silver platter. I was fortunate enough to be at the right places at the right times with the right people. And no matter how I might have screwed that up through being a damn fool, it just kept happening.

I had a conversation with an old friend last week and we got around to a discussion about training. He brought up a point I hadn't thought of before. He said, "_Back in the eighties we didn't have the net, the UFC on TV all the time, we didn't have YouTube, we didn't have all these things to ease our Jonses about fighting, about fight sports, fight training. We had to create those environments ourselves. Actual brick and mortar places that had high energy, crazy training fools that wanted to do advanced Martial Arts every single day."_

So....I dunno', maybe he's on to something there.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Not really. There's plenty of young men who have taken Boxing, Muay Thai, Kickboxing, MMA, and other ring sports who are not professional fighters, but have a great deal of ring time. Some places actually have these sports as scholastic options for athletes in secondary school and college.
> 
> So no, you don't have to be Conor McGregor to have experienced getting your eyes poked in a ring.


plenty as what % of the population?
ive never met any one who does mt till a few weeks back, the odss of being randomly attacked by one seem slight


----------



## Steve

I think this thread is taking a turn.  We've entered the stage of the thread where some folks start just writing fan fiction.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> your still flooggibg the same dead chi ball horse. its false equivency in just the same way as the flat earth is, and lets face it very few pro mmaers look like they would have earnt a good honest living if they hadent decided to get roid up and punch people for a living, it would be intrestibg to know what the mean iq i it seems odd to sugest they have a greater intellectual capacity than tmaers, some of whom are exremtemly well qualified
> 
> i know nothibg about Dillon,  nothing at all, never heard of him till you decided to call me dulusion for not having the same objectives as you
> 
> why dont you tell me in what way he prospered in the tma community?



The belief in flat earth has nothing to do with martial arts.

Chi, No touch KOs, No touch throws, Ki Balls, etc. are an occasional occurrence in various traditional martial arts.

So again, false equivalence.



jobo said:


> plenty as what % of the population?
> ive never met any one who does mt till a few weeks back, the odss of being randomly attacked by one seem slight



Why would the exact percentage be relevant? The point is that there are plenty of young men who take up ring sports and never go pro. Those individuals more than likely have experience getting their eyes poked.

Also the person I was responding to was specifically talking about fighting against a trained sports fighter, not a rapist in a dark alley.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> The belief in flat earth has nothing to do with martial arts.
> 
> Chi, No touch KOs, No touch throws, Ki Balls, etc. are an occasional occurrence in various traditional martial arts.
> 
> So again, false equivalnce.


it has to do with cognative abilities they both do , stupid is stupid

are you saying a belief in chi balls is worse that flat earth, clearly if he belives that there is no bottom on what stupidity he will belive, its possibly beibg kicked in the head that impaired him, so yes related to ma

tell me about dillion, how he prospered and how that relates to me


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> are you saying a belief in chi balls is worse that flat earth,



No. However, since you asked the question, yes the belief in Chi Balls is worse than the belief in flat earth. Based on (ignorant) observation and a heavy belief in religious text, I can see how someone could believe in a flat earth.

You have to be a delusional clown to believe that this is real;









> tell me about dillion, how he prospered and how that relates to me



I said it related to traditional martial arts. Where did I say it related to you?


----------



## drop bear

Bee Brian said:


> Yeah. Morality. A bully is a terrible martial artist compared to a kind-hearted newbie.
> 
> In EVERY arena of life, the criteria of ethics will always be there. I haven't discovered WHY, but it's always included.



How would we measure that?


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> No. However, since you asked the question, yes the belief in Chi Balls is worse than the belief in flat earth. Based on (ignorant) observation and a heavy belief in religious text, I can see how someone could believe in a flat earth.
> 
> You have to be a delusional clown to believe that this is real;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said it related to traditional martial arts. Where did I say it related to you?


well i honestly think that is really strange, 
you say religion is a justification for flat earth, were chi balks are similarly mixed up with mystic belifs, they are to all intents and purpises the same level of belief in mystical nonsense,  just different mystic nonsence

you put dillion down as a " killer point  and now seem reluctant to discuss him at all

it would seem to relate to me as you said i ( and all other tmaers)was delusional and used dillion to suppirt that pointl

please tell me how dillion prspeed in the tma community and how that rekates to me or any other tmaer on here


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> well i honestly think that is really strange,
> you say religion is a justification for flat earth, were chi balks are similarly mixed up with mystic belifs, they are to all intents and purpises the same level of belief in mystical nonsense,  just different mystic nonsence



Not really. Being a Christian or Jewish is a lot more important to someone's identity than rather or not they do Karate or Kung Fu. In fact, I would say you're making yet another false equivalance.



> you put dillion down as a " killer point  and now seem reluctant to discuss him at all
> 
> it would seem to relate to me as you said i ( and all other tmaers)was delusional and used dillion to suppirt that pointl
> 
> please tell me how dillion prspeed in the tma community and how that rekates to me or any other tmaer on here



I'm avoiding discussing him in depth because the last time I did I was accused of style basing and the thread got closed. You're free to look him up on your own. Just make sure you correctly spell his name, since I did so in an earlier post.


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> No, it is exactly because they are delusional and they don't recognize draw backs.
> 
> Do you think someone like George Dillman (who made people believe he could shoot spirit balls of ki from his hands and knock someone out from across the room) would be taken seriously in a MMA gym? He was taken quite seriously in a karate dojo. When you have that level of delusion, a person thinking that they can take an amateur or professional fighter with an eye poke is just a few dozen steps down the delusion ladder.



I certainly see your point, especially after finally having met Dillman in person, which is something I had always wanted to do. I found it very entertaining, very. That being said, Dillman would no sooner be able to hoodwink an MMA gym any more than he would be able to hoodwink any traditional TMA dojo that I ever was in, and I've been in a few.

But to give the man his due, he was not your average hoodwinker, man, that boy could talk like you read about. Personally, I believe him to be a reincarnate. Had to have been the most successful driver of them old timey traveling snake oil wagons the west had ever seen. Nobody could sell something with only one lifetime under their belt like Dillman could.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> @Hanzou There is spillover from sport to self-defense.  But a lot of sport folk just assume they can use their sport training in any situation.  That they'll just figure out how to deal with any differences in the actual engagement.
> 
> For example, I've had plenty of wrestlers or BJJ guys tell me that they would just use their wrestling or BJJ for knife defense. They wouldn't train it, but if someone attacked them with a knife that's what they'd do.  Clinching up is great for stopping power punches from landing, but might make it easier for them to stab you repeatedly.
> 
> Same thing with eye gouges. A lot of MMA folk seem to think the only way of attacking someone's eyes is to throw a claw hand like a punch.  It's not.  I can attack your eyes any time my hands are near your head, because it doesn't require much force.
> 
> They also don't address things like awareness, deescalation, when to fight, what to do after the fight.  Because in a sport match, there is no deescalation. You know who your opponent is. And after the fight, it's over.
> 
> These things can be covered by a sport art.  But lots of sport artists tend to quickly dismiss any situation outside of their sport (or outside of MMA) as being impossible to train for, unlikely to happen, or something they can handle easily without having trained for it.



There are sports that do weapons though. Even sports that do knife disarms. 

So I don't technically have to go from practical to theoretical just because I wanted to be more well rounded.


----------



## Hanzou

Buka said:


> I certainly see your point, especially after finally having met Dillman in person, which is something I had always wanted to do. I found it very entertaining, very. That being said, Dillman would no sooner be able to hoodwink an MMA gym any more than he would be able to hoodwink any traditional TMA dojo that I ever was in, and I've been in a few.



Yeah, I definitely don't believe that he could thrive in ANY TMA dojo. There are plenty of TMA dojos out there that know their stuff and would promptly toss someone like Dillman out of there. My point is someone like Dillman tends to pop up more often in the TMA environment, because various forces are in play in that environment to allow that type of ridiculousness to bloom.



> But to give the man his due, he was not your average hoodwinker, man, that boy could talk like you read about. Personally, I believe him to be a reincarnate. Had to have been the most successful driver of them old timey traveling snake oil wagons the west had ever seen. Nobody could sell something with only one lifetime under their belt like Dillman could.



Yes, give the man his due. It's no small feat to develop a form of mass delusion like he did.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I think this thread is taking a turn.  We've entered the stage of the thread where some folks start just writing fan fiction.



It is a very easy trap to fall in to.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Not really. Being a Christian or Jewish is a lot more important to someone's identity than rather or not they do Karate or Kung Fu. In fact, I would say you're making yet another false equivalance.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm avoiding discussing him in depth because the last time I did I was accused of style basing and the thread got closed. You're free to look him up on your own. Just make sure you correctly spell his name, since I did so in an earlier post.


your telling peopke what more imoirtant to their identity now, like you were telling people what their motives were earlier,

most main stream religions dont dubscribe to the flat earth, like most main stream tma dont subscribe to chi ball, there are a feew loonies that do, you wouldnt hopeful use that as an excuse to attack someones religion but you do to attack there tma.

jus

its hypocrisy,  not false equivelance thats the issue here


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> your telling peopke what more imoirtant to their identity now, like you were telling people what their motives were earlier,
> 
> most main stream religions dont dubscribe to the flat earth, like most main stream tma dont subscribe to chi ball, there are a feew loonies that do, you wouldnt hopeful use that as an excuse to attack someones religion but you do to attack there tma.
> 
> jus
> 
> its hypocrisy,  not false equivelance thats the issue here



I think you're missing the forest for the toothpick here Jobo. I've explained what I'm talking about multiple times. Buka just popped in and instantly knew what I was talking about, yet we've been going back and forth over multiple posts, and things are still flying over your head. I'm not sure I can help you out anymore than I have.


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> No. However, since you asked the question, yes the belief in Chi Balls is worse than the belief in flat earth. Based on (ignorant) observation and a heavy belief in religious text, I can see how someone could believe in a flat earth.
> 
> You have to be a delusional clown to believe that this is real;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said it related to traditional martial arts. Where did I say it related to you?



Ah, but Hanzou, that is too very real. It demonstrates just what people will buy into when they _need_ to be part of something. My question about that clip, and the many more like it, don't people, like family, friends ect ever see these things shorty after they're shared - and then go rescue the poor people shown there?


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> I think you're missing the forest for the toothpick here Jobo. I've explained what I'm talking about multiple times. Buka just popped in and instantly knew what I was talking about, yet we've been going back and forth over multiple posts, and things are still flying over your head. I'm not sure I can help you out anymore than I have.


nwell no, youve gone round in a circle avoiding everything

let try the begining again, why do you rhink im delusional for doing tma? that was your first point wasnt it ?

clearly as you dont want to talk abiyt dilman, you wont ve bringing that up again, that will save an awful lot of time


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> nwell no, youve gone round in a circle avoiding everything
> 
> let try the begining again, why do you rhink im delusional for doing tma? that was your first point wasnt it ?



Uh, nope.



> clearly as you dont want to talk abiyt dilman, you wont ve bringing that up again, that will save an awful lot of time



Like I said, if you want to read about him, its all over the web.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> Ah, but Hanzou, that is too very real. It demonstrates just what people will buy into when they _need_ to be part of something. My question about that clip, and the many more like it, don't people, like family, friends ect ever see these things shorty after they're shared - and then go rescue the poor people shown there?



I assume their friends buy in. I mean then it is someone you know and trust saying "yeah man magic chi balls"


----------



## Buka

drop bear said:


> I assume their friends buy in. I mean then it is someone you know and trust saying "yeah man magic chi balls"



Yeah. Maybe it's the window dressing they use. Getting back to Dillman for a second, the man knows anatomy quite well. Even if someone else doesn't, they can tell that he does. And, again, he has that gift of gab - especially to a receptive audience. I guess BS-ing potential people to buy into that stuff is in the presentation.

Whacky how some people buy into really crazy things.


----------



## skribs

Hanzou said:


> Yes, attempting to poke out someone's eyes to get out of a hold is vastly inferior to actually learning how to escape a hold and actually putting yourself in a position to counter.
> 
> Crazy right?



In the moment? It's less crazy to go for a vulnerable target than to learn.  Are you saying it wouldn't work? I'd consider it high-percentage, based on what I've seen of eye pokes in the UFC.  Most people collapse their structure completely and go straight to damage assessment when their eyes are harmed.  

Are you prepared for your opponent do do something like that?  How would you protect your eyes in that situation?

It's easier to just say "BJJ is better than an eyepoke."  Then you dismiss it.  Then you have no idea how it works. It's the same as someone who says BJJ is stupid because you shouldn't go to the ground anyway.  Anyone who's ever been taken down knows how stuoid that suggestion is.


----------



## Hanzou

skribs said:


> In the moment? It's less crazy to go for a vulnerable target than to learn.  Are you saying it wouldn't work? I'd consider it high-percentage, based on what I've seen of eye pokes in the UFC.  Most people collapse their structure completely and go straight to damage assessment when their eyes are harmed.



Because it’s illegal in MMA and an eye poke can make the person who threw it lose points. It’s just like a foul in Basketball or Soccer. When it happens, the person the foul happens to makes sure the refs see it.



> Are you prepared for your opponent do do something like that?  How would you protect your eyes in that situation?
> 
> It's easier to just say "BJJ is better than an eyepoke."  Then you dismiss it.  Then you have no idea how it works. It's the same as someone who says BJJ is stupid because you shouldn't go to the ground anyway.  Anyone who's ever been taken down knows how stuoid that suggestion is.









I hope this helps.


----------



## skribs

Hanzou said:


> Because it’s illegal in MMA and an eye poke can make the person who threw it lose points. It’s just like a foul in Basketball or Soccer. When it happens, the person the foul happens to makes sure the refs see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this helps.



The posture of the person on the bottom shows he's clearly not trying.  He's moving his arms, but that's it.

He's only trying when in positions. You don't see transitions that might leave vulnerabilities. 

There were a few of those positions where he could have easily gone for a poke with his toes. (Toenails are often more neglected than fingernails.)  Did he not think of that?

This video shows me nothing to prove your point.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Not really unless you are comparing 2 systems that are pretty much on par with each other.
> 
> And sport systems are just easier to gauge if they work because it is obvious when they don't.
> 
> It isn't obvious when self defence doesn't work.
> 
> Because this.
> 
> "Have I tried to close in on boxers? No. This is just supposition (although something that would be fun to test if I had time and knew a boxer)."


You can argue 'when self defense doesn't work in class practice'. Hard to argue when it works in the real world. 
That is where the repetition comes in, regardless of style or system.


----------



## dvcochran

skribs said:


> The posture of the person on the bottom shows he's clearly not trying.  He's moving his arms, but that's it.
> 
> He's only trying when in positions. You don't see transitions that might leave vulnerabilities.
> 
> There were a few of those positions where he could have easily gone for a poke with his toes. (Toenails are often more neglected than fingernails.)  Did he not think of that?
> 
> This video shows me nothing to prove your point.


You have to admit, that was hilarious.


----------



## Hanzou

skribs said:


> The posture of the person on the bottom shows he's clearly not trying.  He's moving his arms, but that's it.
> 
> He's only trying when in positions. You don't see transitions that might leave vulnerabilities.
> 
> There were a few of those positions where he could have easily gone for a poke with his toes. (Toenails are often more neglected than fingernails.)  Did he not think of that?
> 
> This video shows me nothing to prove your point.



Wait... You're going to try an eye poke when you're in an inferior position, and a grappler is in motion? 

You do know why a grappler would be transitioning right? They're transitioning to make your currently bad situation even worse. Going for some sort of face attack while someone is moving into a dominant position is good way to get your hand and arm isolated. My instructor used to call it "a gift".


----------



## JP3

Hanzou said:


> Wait... You're going to try an eye poke when you're in an inferior position, and a grappler is in motion?
> 
> You do know why a grappler would be transitioning right? They're transitioning to make your currently bad situation even worse. Going for some sort of face attack while someone is moving into a dominant position is good way to get your hand and arm isolated. My instructor used to call it "a gift".


I'd agree with your instructor.  People having a "bad thing" done to them, when they lack experience, usually make their situation worse by doing wht they think will help... when very often it exposes them to the "next worse thing."


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Wait... You're going to try an eye poke when you're in an inferior position, and a grappler is in motion?
> 
> You do know why a grappler would be transitioning right? They're transitioning to make your currently bad situation even worse. Going for some sort of face attack while someone is moving into a dominant position is good way to get your hand and arm isolated. My instructor used to call it "a gift".


I have a personal experience in this.

Many years ago I got into a fight in Shang Yang train station in China (one guy tried to cut in line to buy ticket). I got him into a standing head lock. He tried to poke my eyes, I horse back kick his standing legs and took him down on the hard concrete floor. His eye poking gave me a chance to borrow his commitment force. 3 Chinese policeman came. I told those police that this guy tried to poke my eyes. The guy ran away. Those police let me go.

This is why I have always believed that when a clinch is done, striking is useless.


----------



## Graywalker

Really, you are never going to know, if what you practice, will work in the street or if it is of high caliber, unless you test it in the street.

But most will never do that.

I have a cousin, that spent his entire career in the martial arts, in competition. Full Contact, semi, point....and won first place most of the time, here in the U.S. and Mexico. He would always say that they are two completely different animals and he would not trust his skill in the street.

I told him, that was smart thinking and to keep his skill, where he perfected it. That is where he would be safe.


----------



## skribs

Hanzou said:


> Wait... You're going to try an eye poke when you're in an inferior position, and a grappler is in motion?
> 
> You do know why a grappler would be transitioning right? They're transitioning to make your currently bad situation even worse. Going for some sort of face attack while someone is moving into a dominant position is good way to get your hand and arm isolated. My instructor used to call it "a gift".



That's because the only face attacks you're thinking of are a punch (which generates no power in that position) or a grappling attempt.

You're just trying to justify the gaps in the video.


----------



## Hanzou

skribs said:


> That's because the only face attacks you're thinking of are a punch (which generates no power in that position) or a grappling attempt.
> 
> You're just trying to justify the gaps in the video.



No, I’m thinking of face attacks period, and I’m thinking of a transition point where you have a clear shot at the face while you’re laying on your back and a grappler is moving positions, and I honestly can’t think of one.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> You can argue 'when self defense doesn't work in class practice'. Hard to argue when it works in the real world.
> That is where the repetition comes in, regardless of style or system.



Yeah. If you are actually claiming a system then the results have to be consistent.






So I can't go. Hey look guys i rolled a six. And think it supports a case for anything.


----------



## drop bear

Graywalker said:


> Really, you are never going to know, if what you practice, will work in the street or if it is of high caliber, unless you test it in the street.
> 
> But most will never do that.
> 
> I have a cousin, that spent his entire career in the martial arts, in competition. Full Contact, semi, point....and won first place most of the time, here in the U.S. and Mexico. He would always say that they are two completely different animals and he would not trust his skill in the street.
> 
> I told him, that was smart thinking and to keep his skill, where he perfected it. That is where he would be safe.



No. Because you know where it does work. 

Same as how you prove 2+2=4. It works because maths works.


----------



## skribs

Hanzou said:


> No, I’m thinking of face attacks period, and I’m thinking of a transition point where you have a clear shot at the face while you’re laying on your back and a grappler is moving positions, and I honestly can’t think of one.



When I was in wrestling, there were plenty.

In fact, this video here suggests it for helping you to get out of the Muay Thai clinch:





Here's a video where the person is in side control, and has ample access to the person's face:





Here's a video of a person in half guard who has access to his opponent's head:





This guy in guard has easy access to his opponent's head.





Here's another side control video where there's easy access to the head:





This is what's hilarious about your post.  You're doing the same thing that TMAs do.  You're making unrealistic claims about your art.  You might be able to completely prevent someone from touching your face.  But if you're not expecting them to go for an eye gouge, you're probably just going to treat any hands on your face as a nuisance that you can just push off and re-gain your position.  Once they've gotten your eye, it's too late.  The damage is done.

Will they get your eye every time?  Probably not.  Are you going to be able to defend it?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  BJJ is largely built around the idea that your opponent has no power while you work to gain position.  If you have position, then you've isolated a limb.  But if you haven't isolated it yet, then it's not going to take much to poke you in the eyes.

To think you will have complete control for every second of the fight is the same type of claim as a TMA grandmaster saying you won't be able to land a single punch because their blocks are too precise.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> The posture of the person on the bottom shows he's clearly not trying.  He's moving his arms, but that's it.
> 
> He's only trying when in positions. You don't see transitions that might leave vulnerabilities.
> 
> There were a few of those positions where he could have easily gone for a poke with his toes. (Toenails are often more neglected than fingernails.)  Did he not think of that?
> 
> This video shows me nothing to prove your point.



You need to secure the head for an eye gouge to work properly. Otherwise it is irritating but not effective at getting a position change. 

People used to eye gouge me all the time.

The problem is that if you do eye gouge from the bottom and you are not clued on is you can extend your arm, it gets crossed across the body and you wind up in a gift wrap. With nowhere to go. 

There are a whole bunch of factors you need to know that are a lot more important than learning the eye gouge.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Yeah. If you are actually claiming a system then the results have to be consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I can't go. Hey look guys i rolled a six. And think it supports a case for anything.



Yes, if the die is loaded the way that one appeared to be which is the case when someone is adequately trained. 
Surely, you agree the odds for success in a confrontation go up exponentially with self defense or MMA training. 
Of course, you will have to take your bias out of that equation.


----------



## jobo

dvcochran said:


> Yes, if the die is loaded the way that one appeared to be which is the case when someone is adequately trained.
> Surely, you agree the odds for success in a confrontation go up exponentially with self defense or MMA training.
> Of course, you will have to take your bias out of that equation.


of course he isnt going to agree that,

it is extremely difficult to measure with both of those, to reach any concrete conclusion

though he always concludes with out any measure that mma has that effect, and also with no measure concludes self defence training can not. not does not, but that its so intrinsically flawed that it CAN not

ignoring that not all self defence training is the same, he will post some clearly bogus training and use that to conclude its all useless

he just has a script


----------



## Hanzou

skribs said:


> When I was in wrestling, there were plenty.



Wrestling isn't Bjj.



> In fact, this video here suggests it for helping you to get out of the Muay Thai clinch:



I'm not aware of Bjjers using the Muay Thai clinch for takedowns.



> Here's a video where the person is in side control, and has ample access to the person's face:



Yeah, that video shows exactly why you shouldn't stick your arm out while someone has you side control.



> Here's a video of a person in half guard who has access to his opponent's head:



And that guy is in half guard, which is why the guy on top is hugging the trunk. He's doing that because Half Guard is preventing him from advancing to a dominant position. I would say that anyone pulling off an effective Half Guard against a trained grappler is someone who has a decent amount of Bjj experience. Further, if you're in Half Guard you'd be a clown to try to go for an eye poke instead of doing what he did in that video (i.e. pushing the head and then going for an underhook, which is the bread and butter of half guard).



> This guy in guard has easy access to his opponent's head.



Yes, because the Guard is a dominant position. You can eye poke in a dominant position.



> Here's another side control video where there's easy access to the head:



And see above video where you really shouldn't be going for eye pokes while in side control. The guy on top has simply too many options to punish you.



> This is what's hilarious about your post.  You're doing the same thing that TMAs do.  You're making unrealistic claims about your art.  You might be able to completely prevent someone from touching your face.  But if you're not expecting them to go for an eye gouge, you're probably just going to treat any hands on your face as a nuisance that you can just push off and re-gain your position.  Once they've gotten your eye, it's too late.  The damage is done.



Again, if someone is touching my face in a dominant position, their arm is going to get isolated and they're going to get joint locked. Consider what you're arguing here; You're saying that someone in a dominant position is going to allow someone to repeatedly touch their face and do absolutely nothing about it. That's absolutely silly.



> Will they get your eye every time?  Probably not.  Are you going to be able to defend it?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  BJJ is largely built around the idea that your opponent has no power while you work to gain position.  If you have position, then you've isolated a limb.  But if you haven't isolated it yet, then it's not going to take much to poke you in the eyes.
> 
> To think you will have complete control for every second of the fight is the same type of claim as a TMA grandmaster saying you won't be able to land a single punch because their blocks are too precise.



No one is saying there's zero chance for someone to get their eye poked, I'm saying that the idea that this is some sort of sound strategy against a grappler (especially if you don't have grappling experience) is nonsense. Even if you get their eye, you're still in an inferior position, and you've escalated the violence. So yeah you poked them in the eye, now they can pound your face into hamburger meat, snap your limbs, or strangle you to death. Congratulations!


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Wrestling isn't Bjj.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not aware of Bjjers using the Muay Thai clinch for takedowns.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that video shows exactly why you shouldn't stick your arm out while someone has you side control.
> 
> 
> 
> And that guy is in half guard, which is why the guy on top is hugging the trunk. He's doing that because Half Guard is preventing him from advancing to a dominant position. I would say that anyone pulling off an effective Half Guard against a trained grappler is someone who has a decent amount of Bjj experience. Further, if you're in Half Guard you'd be a clown to try to go for an eye poke instead of doing what he did in that video (i.e. pushing the head and then going for an underhook, which is the bread and butter of half guard).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because the Guard is a dominant position. You can eye poke in a dominant position.
> 
> 
> 
> And see above video where you really shouldn't be going for eye pokes while in side control. The guy on top has simply too many options to punish you.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if someone is touching my face in a dominant position, their arm is going to get isolated and they're going to get joint locked. Consider what you're arguing here; You're saying that someone in a dominant position is going to allow someone to repeatedly touch their face and do absolutely nothing about it. That's absolutely silly.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is saying there's zero chance for someone to get their eye poked, I'm saying that the idea that this is some sort of sound strategy against a grappler (especially if you don't have grappling experience) is nonsense. Even if you get their eye, you're still in an inferior position, and you've escalated the violence. So yeah you poked them in the eye, now they can pound your face into hamburger meat or strangle you to death. Congratulations!


im not sure you actually have much exsperiance of fighting outside of a gym enviroment

you certainly dont know the dymmnamic of a brawl,

if you have any sort of control of events at all, you dont let people close enough to bite or poke you in the eye

the fact that you subsequently beat them to a pulp, is little compensation for having your ear or nose bitten off or being blind in one eye.

i mean really who won that fight?


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> im not sure you actually have much exsperiance of fighting outside of a gym enviroment
> 
> you certainly dont know the dymmnamic of a brawl,
> 
> if you have any sort of control of events at all, you dont let people close enough to bite or poke you in the eye
> 
> the fact that you subsequently beat them to a pulp, is little compendation for having your ear or nose bitten off or beibg blind in one eye.
> 
> i mean really who won that fight?



Except which is the more likely scenario? You being able to poke someone's eye out the first time while laying on your back with someone on top of you, or getting your brains bashed in by someone on top of you punching you in the face repeatedly? Again, we're assuming that as soon as you reach out and touch a grappler's face while they're on top of you, they're not going to react to it at all and let you gouge out their eyes. It's the typical TMA delusion. Being on the bottom of side control is the best opportunity for an eye gouge, and I seriously wouldn't recommend doing it from that position.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Except which is the more likely scenario? You being able to poke someone's eye out the first time while laying on your back with someone on top of you, or getting your brains bashed in by someone on top of you punching you in the face repeatedly? Again, we're assuming that as soon as you reach out and touch a grappler's face while they're on top of you, they're not going to react to it at all and let you gouge out their eyes. It's the typical TMA delusion. Being on the bottom of side control is the best opportunity for an eye gouge, and I seriously wouldn't recommend doing it from that position.


how many goes do they need to cause serious eye damage, ?

iif you let a hand on your face at all your in serious danger,, the eyes are easy to find they are just above the nose and they have two to aim at,

your point was if they guaige your eyes you punish them, that rather to late

its not a tma poibt of view, it hard exsperiance of peopke who will think nothing of leavibg youu with long standing damage, if you give them the slightest opertunity to do so
if youve not got control of both hands, youve not got control


----------



## skribs

Hanzou said:


> Wrestling isn't Bjj.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not aware of Bjjers using the Muay Thai clinch for takedowns.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that video shows exactly why you shouldn't stick your arm out while someone has you side control.
> 
> 
> 
> And that guy is in half guard, which is why the guy on top is hugging the trunk. He's doing that because Half Guard is preventing him from advancing to a dominant position. I would say that anyone pulling off an effective Half Guard against a trained grappler is someone who has a decent amount of Bjj experience. Further, if you're in Half Guard you'd be a clown to try to go for an eye poke instead of doing what he did in that video (i.e. pushing the head and then going for an underhook, which is the bread and butter of half guard).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because the Guard is a dominant position. You can eye poke in a dominant position.
> 
> 
> 
> And see above video where you really shouldn't be going for eye pokes while in side control. The guy on top has simply too many options to punish you.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if someone is touching my face in a dominant position, their arm is going to get isolated and they're going to get joint locked. Consider what you're arguing here; You're saying that someone in a dominant position is going to allow someone to repeatedly touch their face and do absolutely nothing about it. That's absolutely silly.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is saying there's zero chance for someone to get their eye poked, I'm saying that the idea that this is some sort of sound strategy against a grappler (especially if you don't have grappling experience) is nonsense. Even if you get their eye, you're still in an inferior position, and you've escalated the violence. So yeah you poked them in the eye, now they can pound your face into hamburger meat, snap your limbs, or strangle you to death. Congratulations!



Those are grappling, even if they aren't BJJ.

Will you always execute those options before the damage is done to your eye? Will you retain composure after damage is done to your eye? Is that trait true of all BJJ fighters?

Yes, you can punish someone for touching your face.  But will you have the wherewithal to do so after getting poked?


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> how many goes do they need to cause serious eye damage, ?



So they lose their eye and you lose your higher brain functions. Seems like a fair trade.



> iif you let a hand on your face at all your in serious danger,, the eyes are easy to find they are just above the nose and they have two to aim at,



Yes, that's why no one is going to LET you put your hands on their face and not react. Further. the eyes are not easy to find while you're in an inferior position.



> your point was if they guaige your eyes you punish them, that rather to late



My point is that even if you accomplish your mission of gouging their eye, you're still in an inferior position, and you've escalated the violence without making yourself safer.



> its not a tma poibt of view, it hard exsperiance of peopke who will think nothing of leavibg youu with long standing damage, if you give them the slightest opertunity to do so
> if youve not got control of both hands, youve not got control



Again, what's worse? Losing an eye so you're walking around with an eye patch, or getting killed from your head consistently smacking into the concrete? It should also be noted that you could completely miss the gouge, but the attempt alone has the potential to escalate the violence.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> So they lose their eye and you lose your higher brain functions. Seems like a fair trade.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's why no one is going to LET you put your hands on their face and not react. Further. the eyes are not easy to find while you're in an inferior position.
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that even if you accomplish your mission of gouging their eye, you're still in an inferior position, and you've escalated the violence without making yourself safer.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what's worse? Losing an eye so you're walking around with an eye patch, or getting killed from your head consistently smacking into the concrete? It should also be noted that you could completely miss the gouge, but the attempt alone has the potential to escalate the violence.


your not grasping  the gravity of the topic, were are not taking about an eye gauge, we talkibg about someone sticking their finger right in yoyr eye, in a delibrate attempt to blind you

you may go on to win that fight, but you flipping blind in one eye ,

i dont underatand hows that difficult to understand, that any techneque that leaves that as even a romote possibility is very suspect


----------



## Hanzou

skribs said:


> Those are grappling, even if they aren't BJJ.



Not all forms of grappling  have joint locks or strangles from dominant position.



> Will you always execute those options before the damage is done to your eye? Will you retain composure after damage is done to your eye? Is that trait true of all BJJ fighters?



Just from personal experience, if I'm in side control my goal is to either advance my position or isolate your near arm for a submission. If you're reaching for an eye gouge, you're purposely giving me your near arm. Like I said, "a gift". 



> Yes, you can punish someone for touching your face.  But will you have the wherewithal to do so after getting poked?



Like I said, poking someone in the eye is an easy way to escalate the violence of the encounter. Like Bas Ruten said; You poke my eye, I snap your neck. You're taking a big risk for potential little reward, because even if you blind someone, that's not a guarantee that they're going to release their hold on you.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> your not grasping  the gravity of the topic, were are not taking about an eye gauge, we talkibg about someone sticking their finger right in yoyr eye, in a delibrate attempt to blind you
> 
> you may go on to win that fight, but you flipping blind in one eye ,
> 
> i dont underatand hows that difficult to understand, that any techneque that leaves that as even a romote possibility is very suspect



Which is why I tend to avoid getting into street fights, because horrible stuff like that can happen. 

However, you seem to be missing the point; Being blinded in one eye is preferable to* death *or permanent brain damage. Any technique/strategy that leaves you open to *death* is HIGHLY suspect.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Not all forms of grappling  have joint locks or strangles from dominant position.
> 
> 
> 
> Just from personal experience, if I'm in side control my goal is to either advance my position or isolate your near arm for a submission. If you're reaching for an eye gouge, you're purposely giving me your near arm. Like I said, "a gift".
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, poking someone in the eye is an easy way to escalate the violence of the encounter. Like Bas Ruten said; You poke my eye, I snap your neck. You're taking a big risk for potential little reward, because even if you blind someone, that's not a guarantee that they're going to release their hold on you.


and you dont understand fighting mentality

ive had numiurous sets tos over the years, where someone has started a foght with me, which when its very soon broken up, they accuse me of tryibg to kill them, well yes thats what i was intending,, 

most fights dont last long till they get broken up , the winner is the one who inflicted the most damage in 20 seconds or so it lasted, having a long game is largley pointless and dangerous, hurt them hurt them quickly, dont lie there doibg artistic moves


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Which is why I tend to avoid getting into street fights, because horrible stuff like that can happen.
> 
> However, you seem to be missing the point; Being blinded in one eye is preferable to* death *or permanent brain damage. Any technique/strategy that leaves you open to *death* is HIGHLY suspect.


 thats a silly argument, its not either or

and the people who will blind you with absolutely no compassion or regret are also the same people that give you very little choice on if you get into a fight or not

what preferable is not using techniques that  put you in danger of being blinded or or bitten or to blind them first


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> and you dont understand fighting mentality
> 
> ive had numiurous sets tos over the years, where someone has started a foght with me, which when its very soon broken up, they accuse me of tryibg to kill them, well yes thats what i was intending,,
> 
> most fights dont last long till they get broken up , the winner is the one who inflicted the most damage in 20 seconds or so it lasted, having a long game is largley pointless and dangerous, hurt them hurt them quickly, dont lie there doibg artistic moves



Why do you think any of that is a "long game"? You can takedown, side control, kimura pop or takedown, mount, ground and pound in about 20 seconds. 

Which btw makes an eye poke even less likely to happen.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> thats a silly argument, its not either or
> 
> and the people who will blind you with absolutely no compassion or regret are also the same people that give you very little choice on if you get into a fight or not
> 
> what preferable is not using techniques that  put you in danger of being blinded or or bitten or to blind them first



The person who attempted to blind you is in an* inferior position*. I don't think this conversation is useful until you understand what that means.


----------



## skribs

Hanzou said:


> Not all forms of grappling  have joint locks or strangles from dominant position.
> 
> 
> 
> Just from personal experience, if I'm in side control my goal is to either advance my position or isolate your near arm for a submission. If you're reaching for an eye gouge, you're purposely giving me your near arm. Like I said, "a gift".
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, poking someone in the eye is an easy way to escalate the violence of the encounter. Like Bas Ruten said; You poke my eye, I snap your neck. You're taking a big risk for potential little reward, because even if you blind someone, that's not a guarantee that they're going to release their hold on you.



Did that person ever actually snap someone's neck? Or is that just prideful boasting in his art?

You're trying to isolate my near arm. What if I use my far arm?  What if you don't catch the arm quite in time?

How do you know you're going to be in a dominant position 100% of the time?

You sound a lot like the stereotypical TMA grandmaster that's claiming their art and training can beat every opponent.

This is why I take the contrarian view.  It lets me see of you're actually critical of your art in less favorable situations, or if you're just drinking koolaid.

From what I can tell: glug glug.


----------



## Hanzou

skribs said:


> Did that person ever actually snap someone's neck? Or is that just prideful boasting in his art?



Bas is MMA, not Bjj (though he is a Bjj blackbelt). I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Bas wanted to snap someone's neck, he could do so rather easily. He has the tools and the mentality to do so.








> You're trying to isolate my near arm. What if I use my far arm?  What if you don't catch the arm quite in time?



......................

As @Steve said, now we're entering the land of fan fiction.



> How do you know you're going to be in a dominant position 100% of the time?



Side control IS a dominant position. You would need to escape that dominant position in order to mount a successful attack. Until you escape that dominant position, you will be stuck in an inferior position.

Like I told @jobo, this conversation is pointless if you don't understand what dominant position and inferior position means. Attacking from an inferior position is extremely risky, which is why people are taught to escape the inferior position first and THEN mount an attack.



> You sound a lot like the stereotypical TMA grandmaster that's claiming their art and training can beat every opponent.



Yeah, Poke-fu isn't being used by "every" opponent. A smart person actually trying to get out of an inferior position would simply learn some simple escapes that not only keep themselves safe, but don't escalate the violence of an encounter.


----------



## skribs

Hanzou said:


> Bas is MMA, not Bjj (though he is a Bjj blackbelt). I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Bas wanted to snap someone's neck, he could do so rather easily. He has the tools and the mentality to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ......................
> 
> As @Steve said, now we're entering the land of fan fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> Side control IS a dominant position. You would need to escape that dominant position in order to mount a successful attack. Until you escape that dominant position, you will be stuck in an inferior position.
> 
> Like I told @jobo, this conversation is pointless if you don't understand what dominant position and inferior position means. Attacking from an inferior position is extremely risky, which is why people are taught to escape the inferior position first and THEN mount an attack.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Poke-fu isn't being used by "every" opponent. A smart person actually trying to get out of an inferior position would simply learn some simple escapes that not only keep themselves safe, but don't escalate the violence of an encounter.


Several of those clips, the far arm is the one that the person put their face next to.  So...not fiction.  I'm basing this on BJJ videos.

You're too far into the MMA cult for me to have a serious discussion with.  I'm done.


----------



## Hanzou

skribs said:


> Several of those clips, the far arm is the one that the person put their face next to.  So...not fiction.  I'm basing this on BJJ videos.
> 
> You're too far into the MMA cult for me to have a serious discussion with.  I'm done.



We were talking about the far arm in side control....


----------



## Steve




----------



## Graywalker

drop bear said:


> No. Because you know where it does work.
> 
> Same as how you prove 2+2=4. It works because maths works.


Yes, perfectly inside a rule set sport...

2+2=4-4=0

Yup math works.


----------



## Graywalker

jobo said:


> and you dont understand fighting mentality


I believe that there are a few people on here, that do not understand this concept.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Bas is MMA, not Bjj (though he is a Bjj blackbelt). I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Bas wanted to snap someone's neck, he could do so rather easily. He has the tools and the mentality to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ......................
> 
> As @Steve said, now we're entering the land of fan fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> Side control IS a dominant position. You would need to escape that dominant position in order to mount a successful attack. Until you escape that dominant position, you will be stuck in an inferior position.
> 
> Like I told @jobo, this conversation is pointless if you don't understand what dominant position and inferior position means. Attacking from an inferior position is extremely risky, which is why people are taught to escape the inferior position first and THEN mount an attack.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Poke-fu isn't being used by "every" opponent. A smart person actually trying to get out of an inferior position would simply learn some simple escapes that not only keep themselves safe, but don't escalate the violence of an encounter.


over again  your most likely not fightibg someone who has been trained at all,you cant exspect them to stick to a protocol

they will attack from any position and do as much damage as possible, and that is what id do as well, break my arm if you want, im still going to try and blind you

ITS A FIGHT, not messing about with yoyr mate on the mat

fights as youve said can escolated in the level of violance, ive never sibscribed to that since i got a serious hidding when i was about 14 for not starting off hard.

but i d considered someone trying to break my arm as them seriously escolating things


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> over again  your most likely not fightibg someone who has been trained at all,you cant exspect them to stick to a protocol
> 
> they will attack from any position and do as much damage as possible, and that is what id do as well, break my arm if you want, im still going to try and blind you
> 
> ITS A FIGHT, not messing about with yoyr mate on the mat



Again, this conversation goes nowhere if you don't understand how dominant and inferior positions work. If you think people get stuck in the bottom of dominant positions because they're following a script or a protocol, I really don't know how we can discuss this any further. You're essentially hopeless.


----------



## Graywalker

jobo said:


> ITS A FIGHT, not messing about with yoyr mate on the mat


I freaking love this, this is something, those who have only done competitive fighting will never understand.

This ground fighting, on asphalt, is simply a meat grinder on your body. No one comes out on top.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Again, this conversation goes nowhere if you don't understand how dominant and inferior positions work. If you think people get stuck in the bottom of dominant positions because they're following a script or a protocol, I really don't know how we can discuss this any further. You're essentially hopeless.


your clueless about real world violence,  your no better than, than the hobby ma you like to ridicule

there not rryibf to win a fight, they are trying to kill you failing that to maim ,

the protocol you want them to follow is not to attack from an inferior postion, and that whhen they will attacked hardest and wish to cause the most damage, if they are winning  there no point going for the eyes,


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> there not rryibf to win a fight,



They're not what?



> the protocol you want them to follow is not to attack from an inferior postion, and that whhen they will attacked hardest and wish to cause the most damage, if they are winning  there no point going for the eyes,



LoL @ "protocol". Unlike one step sparring that you're probably used to, positioning isn't based on a perfect set of circumstances, it's based on fairly universal principles.

Hence why in situations like this;






The principles still apply.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> They're not what?
> 
> 
> 
> LoL @ "protocol". Unlike one step sparring that you're probably used to, positioning isn't based on a perfect set of circumstances, it's based on fairly universal principles.
> 
> Hence why in situations like this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The principles still apply.


i dont do one step sparring, and o agreed with you that competition ma had a distinct advantage,  

that not at all the same as saying you can actually fight, when the consequencu of winning never mind loosing can be very high

what your showing is a distincted lack of awareness  on how things tend to go down,


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> They're not what?
> 
> 
> 
> LoL @ "protocol". Unlike one step sparring that you're probably used to, positioning isn't based on a perfect set of circumstances, it's based on fairly universal principles.
> 
> Hence why in situations like this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The principles still apply.


and that vid oroves nothing,  i knocked a bigger tougher guy than that over 19 months ago with a lot more damaged caused to him,

im quite confident i could have lnocked that one over as well

that of course doesnt prove that karate is king and i could fight before i joined


----------



## jobo

edit


----------



## Graywalker

Hanzou said:


> They're not what?
> 
> 
> 
> LoL @ "protocol". Unlike one step sparring that you're probably used to, positioning isn't based on a perfect set of circumstances, it's based on fairly universal principles.
> 
> Hence why in situations like this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The principles still apply.


This looked set up, seriously it looks as if it started as slap boxing. Lmao


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> and that vid oroves nothing,  i knocked a bigger tougher guy than that over 19 months ago with a lot more damaged caused to him,
> 
> im quite confident i could have lnocked that one over as well
> 
> that of course doesnt prove that karate is king and i could fight before i joined



And you've missed the point completely. I wish I could say I'm surprised.


----------



## Hanzou

Graywalker said:


> This looked set up, seriously it looks as if it started as slap boxing. Lmao



Would you prefer this video? The same principles apply here as well.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> And you've missed the point completely. I wish I could say I'm surprised.


and youve avoided tricky issues completely,  like wise im far from amazed


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Would you prefer this video? The same principles apply here as well.


ive seen that before, which one are you claiming does bjj?


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> ive seen that before, which one are you claiming does bjj?



Neither one of them does Bjj. The point is inferior versus dominant position, and how it's a universal principle.

The point once again flies over your head.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Neither one of them does Bjj. The point is inferior versus dominant position, and how it's a universal principle.
> 
> The point once again flies over your head.


so it had no relivabce at all then? any one koosing a fight ends up in an inferior pistion eventially, its called loosing


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> so it had no relivabce at all then? any one koosing a fight ends up in an inferior pistion eventially, its called loosing



If you actually watched the video, you would have seen that the person holding the dominant positioning shifted multiple times, with it eventually going to the person with the weight advantage. Once his position was established, he could throw blows onto the person in the inferior position uncontested without much hope of reprisal from the person on the bottom.

Bringing this back to the eye poke stuff, if you're in an inferior position like that poor fool at the gas station, your potential for blinding the person on top of you is minuscule next to the potential of the person on top giving you brain damage. That is a universal principle whether you're fighting some fat trucker, or a Bjj black belt.

And that gents is the crux of Bjj. It teaches you how to retain and/or restore a dominant position, which greatly reduces your chances of being in an inferior position, which in turn reduces your chances of "losing" a fight.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> If you actually watched the video, you would have seen that the person holding the dominant positioning shifted multiple times, with it eventually going to the person with the weight advantage. Once his position was established, he could throw blows onto the person in the inferior position uncontested without much hope of reprisal from the person on the bottom.
> 
> Bringing this back to the eye poke stuff, if you're in an inferior position like that poor fool at the gas station, your potential for blinding the person on top of you is minuscule next to the potential of the person on top giving you brain damage.
> 
> And that gents is the crux of Bjj. It teaches you how to retain and/or restore a dominant position, which greatly reduces your chances of being in an inferior position, which in turn reduces your chances of "losing" a fight.


well a fat lad beat up a skinny,  lad , it more of an afvert for beer and hamburgers than it is for bjj principals


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> well a fat lad beat up a skinny,  lad , it more of an afvert for beer and hamburgers than it is for bjj principals



And if the skinny lad knew Bjj, he likely wouldn't have ended up on the bottom eating those punches to the face. When he had the mount near the start of their brawl, he would have known how to retain it, and not get rolled off so easily.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> And if the skinny lad knew Bjj, he likely wouldn't have ended up on the bottom eating those punches to the face. When he had the mount near the start of their brawl, he would have known how to retain it, and not get rolled off so easily.


i can argue, if he had done weight training that night have helped as well, boxing,  karate


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> i can argue, if he had done weight training that night have helped as well, boxing,  karate



Those certainly would have helped, but not as much as understanding how to retain or restore a dominant position.


----------



## drop bear

Graywalker said:


> I freaking love this, this is something, those who have only done competitive fighting will never understand.
> 
> This ground fighting, on asphalt, is simply a meat grinder on your body. No one comes out on top.



Only if it is an equal fight. If they are knee riding you. Then you provide quite the comfortable buffer between them and the asphalt.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> your clueless about real world violence,  your no better than, than the hobby ma you like to ridicule
> 
> there not rryibf to win a fight, they are trying to kill you failing that to maim ,
> 
> the protocol you want them to follow is not to attack from an inferior postion, and that whhen they will attacked hardest and wish to cause the most damage, if they are winning  there no point going for the eyes,



Yeah but they are wasting their time mostly, because they don't have mechanical advantage. If instead of escaping they thrash then their chances of winning go down.

This is in any fight from a play around to a death match.

You might get away with it but there are a hundred other things you could be doing.

In a fight to the death, if this happens there is no amount of intent or willpower or escalation that will save you.






Unconscious is a person literally unable to defend themselves further.

Which is a much more accurate simulation of a life or death fight than this.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> so it had no relivabce at all then? any one koosing a fight ends up in an inferior pistion eventially, its called loosing



Ok. Escalation from an inferior postion and why it can work against you.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Ok. Escalation from an inferior postion and why it can work against you.



Universal principles folks.

Btw, don’t threaten someone on your back bashing your head in from behind. That’s a fast way to end up with hamburger brains.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Ok. Escalation from an inferior postion and why it can work against you.


im not even entering to your fantasy you tube world, either acticulate your points  with out visual aids or forget it


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Yeah but they are wasting their time mostly, because they don't have mechanical advantage. If instead of escaping they thrash then their chances of winning go down.
> 
> This is in any fight from a play around to a death match.
> 
> You might get away with it but there are a hundred other things you could be doing.
> 
> In a fight to the death, if this happens there is no amount of intent or willpower or escalation that will save you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unconscious is a person literally unable to defend themselves further.
> 
> Which is a much more accurate simulation of a life or death fight than this.


how much mechanical advantage, i suspect you mean presure, does it take to damage a blob of membrain with water in it?, im betting less than a grape, but your the one quoting science so you tell me ?


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> how much mechanical advantage, i suspect you mean presure, does it take to damage a blob of membrain with water in it?, im betting less than a grape, but your the one quoting science so you tell me ?



A fair bit if the head isn't supported and moving and the eye is closed.

More than a grape.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> im not even entering to your fantasy you tube world, either acticulate your points  with out visual aids or forget it


Okay

Downward elbows are more effective  than pretty much anything you can throw from the bottom.

So your ahah moment becomes a competition you are likely to loose.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Universal principles folks.
> 
> Btw, don’t threaten someone on your back bashing your head in from behind. That’s a fast way to end up with hamburger brains.



Gravity is a super power.


----------



## Buka

Graywalker said:


> I freaking love this, this is something, those who have only done competitive fighting will never understand.
> 
> This ground fighting, on asphalt, is simply a meat grinder on your body. No one comes out on top.



This leads to to believe you have some street fighting experience. Yes?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> A fair bit if the head isn't supported and moving and the eye is closed.
> 
> More than a grape.


i want figures to back up you claim, a " fair bit" is not an ecxeptable answer


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Okay
> 
> Downward elbows are more effective  than pretty much anything you can throw from the bottom.
> 
> So your ahah moment becomes a competition you are likely to loose.


your jumpibg in half way theough the discusion and contrdictibg points i havent made

the point was i thought simple and obvious, dont let them get in a position were they can eye poke or bite you. other wise irs quite likely they will eye poke or bite you, a lot of bjj, looks suspiciously in eye poke or biting range

its that simple and i really cant see that its not good, stand alone advice, for anyone


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> Neither one of them does Bjj. The point is inferior versus dominant position, and how it's a universal principle.
> 
> The point once again flies over your head.



The very first thing I learned in grappling, the first three words we learned - position, position, position.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Buka said:


> The very first thing I learned in grappling, the first three words we learned - position, position, position.


I remember my first BJJ class. I believe it was 2 hours long, went in with a friend. Did basic warmups, one instructor went over a drill with everyone else, and they spent the majority of the class rolling. The two of us went off with another instructor, learned about mount, side mount, and guard, and how to transition between them/how to keep them, and how to escape if needed. That took most of the class, and we did some resistance with each other. We spent the last like 10-15 minutes rolling with everyone else, with just that knowledge. IIRC, the next couple of classes we were paired up with each other/some purple+belts, and each time all we would be doing is put into a position and either try to keep it, escape it, or transition to a different position.

Everything builds from there; if you don't know positioning you're really just hoping the other person makes a mistake and gives you a lucky sub.


----------



## Hanzou

Buka said:


> The very first thing I learned in grappling, the first three words we learned - position, position, position.



Same here. More importantly, I didn't understand its importance until I went into Bjj. It took me a long time to understand that your goal is to *escape* from an inferior position, not *attack *from an inferior position.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> i want figures to back up you claim, a " fair bit" is not an ecxeptable answer



There are no figures to back up your claim. 

So I don't need figures to refute it.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> The very first thing I learned in grappling, the first three words we learned - position, position, position.



The first thing I learned was get off the mat with your bloody shoes.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> your jumpibg in half way theough the discusion and contrdictibg points i havent made
> 
> the point was i thought simple and obvious, dont let them get in a position were they can eye poke or bite you. other wise irs quite likely they will eye poke or bite you, a lot of bjj, looks suspiciously in eye poke or biting range
> 
> its that simple and i really cant see that its not good, stand alone advice, for anyone



That is two points. 

But the better you can grapple the better you can eye gouge and bite people 

So the best way to get bitten in a street fight is not to have done BJJ.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


>



F*** that choke. Seriously. I got caught by that choke years ago in no-gi. I tapped fairly quickly but I had a headache for days.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> That is two points.
> 
> But the better you can grapple the better you can eye gouge and bite people
> 
> So the best way to get bitten in a street fight is not to have done BJJ.



As an addition to this. You should in theory always be cross facing people. Or have chin control or shoulder of authority.






People don't because they wrestle lazy.

Rolling with biting would be a good way to emphasise the importance of good position.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> your clueless about real world violence,  your no better than, than the hobby ma you like to ridicule
> 
> there not rryibf to win a fight, they are trying to kill you failing that to maim ,
> 
> the protocol you want them to follow is not to attack from an inferior postion, and that whhen they will attacked hardest and wish to cause the most damage, if they are winning  there no point going for the eyes,


What if, stay with me here, everyone on this forum who is not professionally violent is clueless when it come to real world violence?  And what if that's actually the point?


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> What if, stay with me here, everyone on this forum who is not professionally violent is clueless when it come to real world violence?  And what if that's actually the point?



Uh oh. This many be a Morpheus moment.


----------



## Graywalker

Hanzou said:


> Would you prefer this video? The same principles apply here as well.


So you do not have any real personal knowledge yourself? I am only asking, because it will go a long way, in determine whether or not I value your opinion.

Not an insult, I simply want know if your opinion, is based on personal knowledge, in fighting for your life.


----------



## Hanzou

Graywalker said:


> So you do not have any real personal knowledge yourself? I am only asking, because it will go a long way, in determine whether or not I value your opinion.
> 
> Not an insult, I simply want know if your opinion, is based on personal knowledge, in fighting for your life.



Ive been in three physical altercations in the last 25 years. Two of those were life threatening, and I used Bjj to get out of both of those situations. Overall, I tend to avoid getting into dangerous encounters, since there’s no logical reason to purposely look for violence. Also due to my size, I’m typically able to avoid altercations because of that alone. Predators don’t tend to not go after bald men 6’ and over with a large frame.


----------



## Graywalker

Hanzou said:


> Ive been in three physical altercations in the last 25 years. Two of those were life threatening, and I used Bjj to get out of both of those situations. Overall, I tend to avoid getting into dangerous encounters, since there’s no logical reason to purposely look for violence. Also due to my size, I’m typically able to avoid altercations because of that alone. Predators don’t tend to not go after bald men 6’ and over with a large frame.


This type of experience, is very valuable to me as I have been considering looking into doing BJJ for a personal knowledge of the system.

I am relocating to the Vancouver WA. area and there are a couple of schools in the area. I have zero knowledge of these schools or even the instructors teaching the system. 

Although Renzo Gracie JJ, out of Portland, is a name I recognize. Do you have any opinion concerning this gym?

I myself am husky guy and wondered if my size would be an issue.

Thank you for the information, I read more into your post than just the combat aspect of BJJ.


----------



## Hanzou

Graywalker said:


> This type of experience, is very valuable to me as I have been considering looking into doing BJJ for a personal knowledge of the system.
> 
> I am relocating to the Vancouver WA. area and there are a couple of schools in the area. I have zero knowledge of these schools or even the instructors teaching the system.
> 
> Although Renzo Gracie JJ, out of Portland, is a name I recognize. Do you have any opinion concerning this gym?
> 
> I myself am husky guy and wondered if my size would be an issue.
> 
> Thank you for the information, I read more into your post than just the combat aspect of BJJ.



If you're talking about this gym;

Renzo Gracie Portland | Brazilian Jiu Jitsu | Gi | No Gi - Renzo Gracie Academy Portland

You're in good hands. The head instructor got his black belt from John Danaher, so he's legit as they come. Also he has a pretty stacked team of black belts and upper belts on his instructional staff, so yeah, that's a very good school.

That said, make sure you shop around. There's a lot of good Bjj schools in that area, and the pedigree of the instructional staff doesn't mean much if the culture of the gym is trash, or if they have insane monthly fees. Most of those schools should have a trial period, and I would take full advantage of it.

Your size won't be an issue. In fact, some people greatly value rolling with larger people, because it enhances their game.


----------



## Graywalker

Nice, yeah they do have a free week trial and looking at the reviews, it appears that the gym and the instructors are excellent. But, yes most definitely I will visit several of the gyms in the area, before making my decision.

Thank you for the information and when I choose a place, I will keep you updated on my experience.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> If you're talking about this gym;
> 
> Renzo Gracie Portland | Brazilian Jiu Jitsu | Gi | No Gi - Renzo Gracie Academy Portland
> 
> You're in good hands. The head instructor got his black belt from John Danaher, so he's legit as they come. Also he has a pretty stacked team of black belts and upper belts on his instructional staff, so yeah, that's a very good school.
> 
> That said, make sure you shop around. There's a lot of good Bjj schools in that area, and the pedigree of the instructional staff doesn't mean much if the culture of the gym is trash, or if they have insane monthly fees. Most of those schools should have a trial period, and I would take full advantage of it.
> 
> Your size won't be an issue. In fact, some people greatly value rolling with larger people, because it enhances their game.


There's a ton of excellent bjj in that area.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> There's a ton of excellent bjj in that area.



Yeah, it's pretty amazing how Bjj has grown in most urban centers. When I first started, most cities had 1-2 Bjj gyms tops. Now you have cities loaded with good-great Bjj instruction. I've been out of the loop for some time, but I wonder how the local competition scene is in cities like that with a ton of good schools.


----------



## Hanzou

Graywalker said:


> Nice, yeah they do have a free week trial and looking at the reviews, it appears that the gym and the instructors are excellent. But, yes most definitely I will visit several of the gyms in the area, before making my decision.
> 
> Thank you for the information and when I choose a place, I will keep you updated on my experience.



Cool. 

There's an old martial arts adage about "emptying your cup".... I really think that saying applies big time to Bjj. Don't go in thinking you're hot ****, because you're going to suck hard for a very long time. When you think you're getting better, something (or someone) is going to come along to make you realize you suck again. You're going to get subbed by big people, small people, women, kids, old people, etc. Unless you're in competition, tap quickly and tap often. Don't take it personally, don't take it as a defeat, take it as a learning experience and get better. If there's an opportunity to roll (spar), take it, because everything you're learning doesn't mean anything if you're not learning how to apply it. 

Also since you're a husky dude, don't be a mat bully. It will not work out for you, trust me.

In the end, just roll with it (pun intended), have a good time, and ask a lot of questions. Don't let your personal ego get in the way of enjoying a wonderful martial art.

Good luck.


----------



## KenpoMaster805

Being competitive doesnt mean your superior than just an ordinary person who doesnt compete its just you go there to get trophy thats it and represent your class no matter how you compete there will be a better person than u who doesn't compete


----------



## drop bear

KenpoMaster805 said:


> Being competitive doesnt mean your superior than just an ordinary person who doesnt compete its just you go there to get trophy thats it and represent your class no matter how you compete there will be a better person than u who doesn't compete



How would you know?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

KenpoMaster805 said:


> Being competitive doesnt mean your superior than just an ordinary person who doesnt compete its just you go there to get trophy thats it and represent your class no matter how you compete there will be a better person than u who doesn't compete


It's not an argument if you at a person are superior, or a better person than someone else. It's whether or not competitive arts are more effective at teaching self-defense/to fight/whatever goal than non-competitive arts.


----------



## KenpoMaster805

drop bear said:


> How would you know?



Been there done that I've been competing since i was a yellow up to 3rd brown but i know no matter how i compete i know there's a person who will be better than me that is not competing at all


----------



## Hanzou

KenpoMaster805 said:


> Being competitive doesnt mean your superior than just an ordinary person who doesnt compete its just you go there to get trophy thats it and represent your class no matter how you compete there will be a better person than u who doesn't compete



In BJJ, if we look at the top echelon of competitors, that really isn't the case. There's some damn good instructors out there who have never competed, but they'd get gift-wrapped by the top Bjj competitors in the world. Also those top Bjj competitors slide right into MMA (Tonnen, Hall, Dern, Gracie, etc.) and do fairly well.

It's really no different than what you see in other Martial Sports like Boxing, Muay Thai, Sanshou, MMA, Wrestling, etc. You have the hobby tier, the amateur tier, and the professional tier. The idea that the hobby or amateur tier is on equal footing with the pro tier is laughable, and is frankly part of the TMA delusion I discussed earlier.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Ive been in three physical altercations in the last 25 years. Two of those were life threatening, and I used Bjj to get out of both of those situations. Overall, I tend to avoid getting into dangerous encounters, since there’s no logical reason to purposely look for violence. Also due to my size, I’m typically able to avoid altercations because of that alone. Predators don’t tend to not go after bald men 6’ and over with a large frame.


hmm, im not sure thats really a testiment for bjj

thats much the same for me over the last 20 years or, so,im very bald and quite big, the number of people who want to push it,  beyond shouting at a distance are few

but ive had to fight my way out of a few life threatning situations as well and i didnt use bjj,

so what does that prove i wonder?


----------



## Graywalker

Hanzou said:


> Cool.
> 
> There's an old martial arts adage about "emptying your cup".... I really think that saying applies big time to Bjj. Don't go in thinking you're hot ****, because you're going to suck hard for a very long time. When you think you're getting better, something (or someone) is going to come along to make you realize you suck again. You're going to get subbed by big people, small people, women, kids, old people, etc. Unless you're in competition, tap quickly and tap often. Don't take it personally, don't take it as a defeat, take it as a learning experience and get better. If there's an opportunity to roll (spar), take it, because everything you're learning doesn't mean anything if you're not learning how to apply it.
> 
> Also since you're a husky dude, don't be a mat bully. It will not work out for you, trust me.
> 
> In the end, just roll with it (pun intended), have a good time, and ask a lot of questions. Don't let your personal ego get in the way of enjoying a wonderful martial art.
> 
> Good luck.


I agree with you, I tend too, when checking out a new system ,wipe my mind clean and assume a complete newbie mentality. 

Although, the instructor figures out pretty quick that I have trained before. This is where it gets interesting as most instructors welcome that, some don't. If they don't welcome previous experience, I simply finish the class and move on.

I will definitely take your advice to heart.


----------



## Graywalker

jobo said:


> but ive had to fight my way out of a few life threatning situations as well and i didnt use bjj


Since I asked the original question.

If what you have trained in, helps you survive one life or death scenario, I will be convinced that you know what you are talking about.

This is where the arts and there use is important to me. Although I respect the time that competitive martial artist put in, if they have never actualized it in real combat their opinion isn't of much use, to me personally.

Now, the system itself is not important, but whether or not the individual has used it in these types of situation, to me personally is of importance.


----------



## jobo

Graywalker said:


> Since I asked the original question.
> 
> If what you have trained in, helps you survive one life or death scenario, I will be convinced that you know what you are talking about.
> 
> This is where the arts and there use is important to me. Although I respect the time that competitive martial artist put in, if they have never actualized it in real combat their opinion isn't of much use, to me personally.
> 
> Now, the system itself is not important, but whether or not the individual has used it in these types of situation, to me personally is of importance.


well  yes but your logic is failing slightly

most peopke dont do ma, a fair few of them have had to protect themselves or their family and hhave done so successfully , due to any number of factors that may or may not apply to you


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> hmm, im not sure thats really a testiment for bjj
> 
> thats much the same for me over the last 20 years or, so,im very bald and quite big, the number of people who want to push it,  beyond shouting at a distance are few
> 
> but ive had to fight my way out of a few life threatning situations as well and i didnt use bjj,
> 
> so what does that prove i wonder?



Considering that you have no idea what occurred in either encounter, saying that Bjj training had nothing to do with my success in escaping those encounters with my life intact is a rather ignorant statement to make.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Considering that you have no idea what occurred in either encounter, saying that Bjj training had nothing to do with my success in escaping those encounters with my life intact is a rather ignorant statement to make.


but i didnt say that did i, ? 

i mearly added my own unsupprted anecdote,  of not using bjj, in dangerous situations and coming out unscaved.

both would seem to have equal value of proving precisely nothing


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> but i didnt say that did i, ?
> 
> i mearly added my own unsupprted anecdote,  of not using bjj, in dangerous situations and coming out unscaved.
> 
> both would seem to have equal value of proving precisely nothing



You said that MY situation wasn’t a testament to the effectiveness of Bjj.

Which again is an ignorant statement to make since you don’t know what happened in either situation.

Perhaps YOUR situation had nothing to do with Bjj training, but mine did.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> You said that MY situation wasn’t a testament to the effectiveness of Bjj.
> 
> Which again is an ignorant statement to make since you don’t know what happened in either situation.
> 
> Perhaps YOUR situation had nothing to do with Bjj training, but mine did.


it may be to you, but its not a testiment to anyone else, well not anyone who can use lodgic

, if they are ever faced with the exact siituation and the exact same attacker and they have precisely the same abilities as you, then yes, that works, but be honest how likely is that?


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> it may be to you, but its not a testiment to anyone else, well not anyone who can use lodgic



That's fantastic, but the question *I* was answering was about MY experience, no one else's.

This is what happens when you jump into a conversation that doesn't pertain to you.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> That's fantastic, but the question *I* was answering was about MY experience, no one else's.
> 
> This is what happens when you jump into a conversation that doesn't pertain to you.


but your offering your exsperiance to others as an example of how,effective bjj is

and im sure in your mind you connected the two together as proving something and you may be correct for you, but urs not as a said a relable testiment for other people on if bjj will work for them coz both they and the situation will be comptlly different


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> but your offering your exsperiance to others as an example of how,effective bjj is



Because that's what I was asked to do by another member of this forum. 



> and im sure in your mind you connected the two together as proving something and you may be correct for you, but urs not as a said a relable testiment for other people on if bjj will work for them



Again, the question wasn't "Do you think Bjj can protect [insert poster's name] in a self defense situation?" The question was "Have YOU (Hanzou) ever experienced a dangerous situation", with the implication whether or not I had ever used Bjj to protect myself.

I'm seriously amazed that you don't seem to get this.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Because that's what I was asked to do by another member of this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the question wasn't "Do you think Bjj can protect [insert poster's name] in a self defense situation?" The question was "Have YOU (Hanzou) ever experienced a dangerous situation", with the implication whether or not I had ever used Bjj to protect myself.
> 
> I'm seriously amazed that you don't seem to get this.


i do get it, and my xmcomment was that that is not a good testiment for other people 

a fact you dont seem to grasp


----------



## Graywalker

jobo said:


> well  yes but your logic is failing slightly
> 
> most peopke dont do ma, a fair few of them have had to protect themselves or their family and hhave done so successfully , due to any number of factors that may or may not apply to you


True, but they have personal experience and experience is validation, when they comment on the subject.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> i do get it, and my xmcomment was that that is not a good testiment for other people



Since you moved the goalpost, I'll move it as well; Considering that you don't know the situation, how do you know it's not a good testament for other people?

For example, what if a woman used Guard to avoid getting strangled by a large man on top of her? Couldn't that be used as a testament for Bjj's effectiveness for women at large?


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Since you moved the goalpost, I'll move it as well; Considering that you don't know the situation, how do you know it's not a good testament for other people?


well rather coz no two situations are going to be the same.

there of course things that appy universally,  such as, if you have a flat tyre,  a jack, wheel brace and spare tyre will help, 

but then you get into situation specifics,  such as for gods sake dont change a tyre in the fast lane of the motorway, coz it different,


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> well rather coz no two situations are going to be the same.
> 
> there of course things that appy universally,  such as, if you have a flat tyre,  a jack, wheel brace and spare tyre will help,
> 
> but then you get into situation specifics,  such as for gods sake dont change a tyre in the fast lane of the motorway, coz it different,



Yet if we look at those videos earlier in the thread, the same general principles applied to multiple situations. So while no two situations are the exact same, obviously there are skills that can be learned that can be applied to a broad swath of encounters.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Yet if we look at those videos earlier in the thread, the same general principles applied to multiple situations. So while no two situations are the exact same, obviously there are skills that can be learned that can be applied to a broad swath of encounters.


skills can of course be applied,  but those dont have to be bbj or even ma skills

if i use my football expertes to evade an attacker, or my baton twirling exspertise to hit him with a pool cue, then im not going to be bigging myself up and saying people shpuld do football or cheerleading coz it worked for me


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

*Are competitive Sport Martial Artists superior?*

Instead of spending your time to train the TMA form, if you just train this 1 step 1 punch, will you get better result?

If you include this kind of punch when you run. It takes over *2,000 steps* to walk one mile. If you run 3 miles, you should have done 6,000 punches (along with footwork).

IMO, competitive sport MA can remind us what's important and what not that important.

*




*


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> skills can of course be applied,  but those dont have to be bbj or even ma skills
> 
> if i use my football expertes to evade an attacker, or my baton twirling exspertise to hit him with a pool cue, then im not going to be bigging myself up and saying people shpuld do football or cheerleading coz it worked for me



Well that's because that isn't the point of playing football or Cheerleading. However, the point of Bjj is to restore and retain dominant position in a fight. So obviously if you're highly trained in Bjj, you should be able to perform what Bjj was made to do in a most situations.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Well that's because that isn't the point of playing football or Cheerleading. However, the point of Bjj is to restore and retain dominant position in a fight. So obviously if you're highly trained in Bjj, you should be able to perform what Bjj was made to do in a most situations.


well at least one major point of football is to evade people , 

 so if what ever situation occures requires evasion, then football will top bjj every time

if a pool cue come to hand, that cheer leading will top bjj every time,

like i said and keep saying its very situation dependent


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> well at least one major point of football is to evade people ,



If you're an offensive player. If you're on defense, that isn't a major point of practice.

Anyway, I'm not seeing a point to this conversation, since your only goal appears to make irrelevant contrarian arguments, so we'll just have to leave it here.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *Are competitive Sport Martial Artists superior?*
> 
> Instead of spending your time to train the TMA form, if you just train this 1 step 1 punch, will you get better result?
> 
> If you include this kind of punch when you run. It takes over *2,000 steps* to walk one mile. If you run 3 miles, you should have done 6,000 punches (along with footwork).
> 
> IMO, competitive sport MA can remind us what's important and what not that important.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *



Didn't he get KO'd by a front kick to the face?


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> If you're an offensive player. If you're on defense, that isn't a major point of practice.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not seeing a point to this conversation, since your only goal appears to make irrelevant contrarian arguments, so we'll just have to leave it here.


i was talking about actual foot ball, not that american thing, but yes id fancy my chances more against a hobby bjjer than an offensive lineback

irelivant points seem to be anything that disagrees with yoyr narative


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Didn't he get KO'd by a front kick to the face?


I like the aggressive type of dynamic punch. I have always feel guilty for my running. Every time when I run, I feel I should use that time to train MA instead. When I integrate punched into my running, I no longer feel guilty about my running. Especial when I hold barbells and punch when I run, I feel I can do

- endurance training,
- MA training,
- weight training.

all at the same time. By using 1 stone to kill 3 birds is always a good idea.

Here are good examples that dynamic straight punch can be countered by circular hook punch.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> hmm, im not sure thats really a testiment for bjj
> 
> thats much the same for me over the last 20 years or, so,im very bald and quite big, the number of people who want to push it,  beyond shouting at a distance are few
> 
> but ive had to fight my way out of a few life threatning situations as well and i didnt use bjj,
> 
> so what does that prove i wonder?



That the street is a bad example for consistency and sport is a better example.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> That the street is a bad example for consistency and sport is a better example.


well that was rather my point,  the real world is inconsistent and unpredictable

the last issue i had i was lost in my own thoughts with no feelibg of danger or anywarnings,

no one get in a ring with out exspecting a bit of a fight is to break out, with some of much the same weight and probably of comparable ability, and operate more or less in compliance with what ever rule set is in place and unless its a wwf tag team event that they will be on their own and bot as in my situation armed with a pitbull


----------



## dvcochran

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like the aggressive type of dynamic punch. I have always feel guilty for my running. Every time when I run, I feel I should use that time to train MA instead. When I integrate punched into my running, I no longer feel guilty about my running. Especial when I hold barbells and punch when I run, I feel I can do
> 
> - endurance training,
> - MA training,
> - weight training.
> 
> all at the same time. By using 1 stone to kill 3 birds is always a good idea.
> 
> Here are good examples that dynamic straight punch can be countered by circular hook punch.



Are you saying you do not think that was strategic at all? BTW, I have not seen the fight.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> i was talking about actual foot ball, not that american thing, but yes id fancy my chances more against a hobby bjjer than an offensive lineback



So you believe that an athlete is a more formidable opponent than a hobbyist? 

I actually agree.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like the aggressive type of dynamic punch. I have always feel guilty for my running. Every time when I run, I feel I should use that time to train MA instead. When I integrate punched into my running, I no longer feel guilty about my running. Especial when I hold barbells and punch when I run, I feel I can do
> 
> - endurance training,
> - MA training,
> - weight training.
> 
> all at the same time. By using 1 stone to kill 3 birds is always a good idea.
> 
> Here are good examples that dynamic straight punch can be countered by circular hook punch.



I think this just shows that the ring is a great way to test out a fight theory. Some arts like Wing Chun for example pretty much rely on that straight punch forward motion, seemingly never realizing that a hook punch can send you to dreamland. Boxing realized this long ago. Why? Because they actually applied the fight theory in a relatively safe environment.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

dvcochran said:


> Are you saying you do not think that was strategic at all? BTW, I have not seen the fight.


To let your opponent to come in with straight punches. You then use hook punch to knock him down is a good strategy. I have used this strategy all the time. As long as you can move to the side (by wheeling step), your opponent's forward momentum can let you easily to use your hook punch to hit on the back of his head.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> I think this just shows that the ring is a great way to test out a fight theory. Some arts like Wing Chun for example pretty much rely on that straight punch forward motion, seemingly never realizing that a hook punch can send you to dreamland. Boxing realized this long ago. Why? Because they actually applied the fight theory in a relatively safe environment.


The dynamic circular punched can give your opponent more trouble than the dynamic straight punches.

- You can use circular punch to deal with your opponent's straight punch.
- You can't use straight punch to deal with your opponent's circular punch. Your straight punch will be knocked down by your opponent's circular punch any way.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The dynamic circular punched can give your opponent more trouble than the dynamic straight punches.
> 
> - You can use circular punch to deal with your opponent's straight punch.
> - You can't use straight punch to deal with your opponent's circular punch. Your straight punch will be knocked down by your opponent's circular punch any way.



I agree. Which is why testing in a controlled environment (like sport) is good.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Many TMA techniques are used in the Sanda format.


----------



## EdwardA

I don't know guys.  This conversation seems to always go back to the ring.  A sport has rules....lots of them.

Combat has no rules.  I can't see them as very relative.  All those rules take away, easily half of what I'm good at.

I know that these guys are tough and have skill, but it's not like having a couple guys with lock-blades in front of you, and a guy sneaking up behind you...trying to rap a belt buckle around your head.  They were seasoned gang-bangers.  I did well in that situation, but wouldn't get very far in MMA.


----------



## EdwardA

Most of what I trained at, breaks all sporting rules.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

EdwardA said:


> Most of what I trained at, breaks all sporting rules.


Like what?


----------



## EdwardA

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Like what?



Oh like sending a crushing blow to the throat, first punch... breaking a knee on the way in... putting a full power elbow at the bottom of the ear to break their neck...more?  Breaking an elbow with a kick... stomping a knee as they go down.  Kicking under the shoulder to dislocate it.  I weigh 140 and most of my fights have been with guys 2-4 inces taller and 180-200 lbs.  Or guys with knives.  I had to train that way.  I've even clinbed right up big guys and put the ball of my foot right into their throat.  Does that break the rules?


----------



## KOKarate

EdwardA said:


> Oh like sending a crushing blow to the throat, first punch... breaking a knee on the way in... putting a full power elbow at the bottom of the ear to break their neck...more?  Breaking an elbow with a kick... stomping a knee as they go down.  Kicking under the shoulder to dislocate it.  I weigh 140 and most of my fights have been with guys 2-4 inces taller and 180-200 lbs.  Or guys with knives.  I had to train that way.


Sounds like a segal movie


----------



## EdwardA

KOKarate said:


> Sounds like a segal movie



....don't know what that means, but I was trained to be highly destructive from the beginning.  I've tried not to be, but you get that way fast when somebody's trying to put a butcher knife in you....or pulls a pistol out of their belt.  Admittedly I've been fortunate.  The 4 times I've had pistols pulled on me, they were no more than 3 to 4 feet from me.

Oh you mean S.Segal.  Never trained Akido, but looked at some of their techniques.  I combined WC, Kenpo, JKDs intercepting fist and Taiji.... mostly.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

EdwardA said:


> Oh like sending a crushing blow to the throat, first punch... breaking a knee on the way in... putting a full power elbow at the bottom of the ear to break their neck...more?  Breaking an elbow with a kick... stomping a knee as they go down.  Kicking under the shoulder to dislocate it.  I weigh 140 and most of my fights have been with guys 2-4 inces taller and 180-200 lbs.  Or guys with knives.  I had to train that way.  I've even clinbed right up big guys and put the ball of my foot right into their throat.  Does that break the rules?


Are those things you train?

So with sending a crushing blow to the throat...how do you know that would work? Is that something you've done against pressure with people actively not wanting their throat crushed? And if you train to punch a guys nose and use that in competition, do you think it would take a lot of effort changing it to the throat?

With braking a knee on the way in...technically I guess that might be illegal in MMA...but the move for it (I'm assuming a front low kick with your foot slightly to an outside angle as that's what I've learned) is seen in MMA. And it doesn't always work like that. But there's nothing illegal about that move. Or whichever one you have to destroy the knee. 

The full power elbow at the bottom of the ear I believe is not illegal as well. 

How do you break an elbow with a kick? Based on the styles I've trained, an elbow is a move you do after you've already transitioned to being in close. And not enough time for a kick to interfere...a punch or a backup-push away possibly, but not a kick. The only way I could see that being effective is if the person charges in with an elbow which wouldn't really make sense. If I'm missing something I would really appreciate either an explanation via text or a video explaining it. 

Stomping a knee while they're going down-Yeah I think that's illegal in most bouts. And yeah I agree that's a flaw in MMA/kickboxing. Personally I wouldn't do that while they're going down-the better option in a self defense situation would be once I have them going down either dealing with the next person or running away, rather than staying around to deal more damage. It makes my case worse in a legal situation, and if I miss it gives them/their friends more time to recover and/or attack me. 

Regarding kicking under the shoulder to dislocate it-does that work? I've never heard of that, but it sounds awesome! My most deadly shoulder height-kick would be kicking the bicep to essentially charlie horse them so they can't punch. How do you dislocate their shoulder with a kick? Does it rely on you kicking them while they're punching, or is it something you're able to do while they have their guard? It would be super helpful if you could show me how, I'd love to know.

Regarding the weight. I generally weigh less than you, and I'm 5'7 so most people are taller than me. Knives are also my main focus the last 3ish years. But I don't believe throwing a front ball kick or a side kick with the ball of your foot on someone's throat breaks the rules for most MMA bouts. It's just something that's tough to do when the person knows how to fight.


----------



## drop bear

EdwardA said:


> I don't know guys.  This conversation seems to always go back to the ring.  A sport has rules....lots of them.
> 
> Combat has no rules.  I can't see them as very relative.  All those rules take away, easily half of what I'm good at.
> 
> I know that these guys are tough and have skill, but it's not like having a couple guys with lock-blades in front of you, and a guy sneaking up behind you...trying to rap a belt buckle around your head.  They were seasoned gang-bangers.  I did well in that situation, but wouldn't get very far in MMA.



Why wouldn't you get far in MMA?


----------



## Hanzou

EdwardA said:


> I don't know guys.  This conversation seems to always go back to the ring.  A sport has rules....lots of them.
> 
> Combat has no rules.  I can't see them as very relative.  All those rules take away, easily half of what I'm good at.
> 
> I know that these guys are tough and have skill, but it's not like having a couple guys with lock-blades in front of you, and a guy sneaking up behind you...trying to rap a belt buckle around your head.  They were seasoned gang-bangers.  I did well in that situation, but wouldn't get very far in MMA.



They did take the rules away, in the original UFC the only rules were no eye gouging or biting.

We still got pretty much the same result. 

Yes, we realize that there are tons of variables that can take place on "the street", but the simple reality is if exponents from your system have problems taking down one guy, why should we believe that those same exponents can take down multiple opponents, or some psycho wielding a knife? 

Why is MMA and Bjj exploding around the world while traditional styles are starting to wither and die off? Simple, because they keep winning, and people like winners, and they like results. We're almost 30 years into this and we're getting the same results over and over again, so for the majority of people, the verdict has already been reached. People just don't buy the belief that there's some ancient grandmaster hiding in a temple anymore. Now people rightly say if your art is so amazing, show it to us in a public venue. When no one shows, the reputation of the arts outside of the MMA/BJJ sphere simply get worse and worse.


----------



## EdwardA

I didn't say I haven't fought on the ground, I said I'd prefer not to.  Have any of you guys had a fight on a cement sidewalk, in the roadway or parking lot? Rolling around on the pavement is not preferred by by anybody.  Is it?  And if you are facing 2-3 guys with weapons it's really a bad place to be.

As far as rules go, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing to many people come out of the ring maimed for life.  A a few by accident, but not on purpose.  That is an element of the street.  Dier concequences.  Ask a Seal or Ranger if they want to use their ground game.  Yeah, they can, but they'll tell you they intend not to.


----------



## Hanzou

EdwardA said:


> I didn't say I haven't fought on the ground, I said I'd prefer not to.  Have any of you guys had a fight on a cement sidewalk, in the roadway or parking lot? Rolling around on the pavement is not preferred by by anybody.  Is it?  And if you are facing 2-3 guys with weapons it's really a bad place to be.



I have, and it isn't about preference, it's about getting out of an inferior position and into a superior position. Yes, facing 2-3 guys sucks, now imagine facing 2-3 guys on the bottom of someone's mount with them raining punches down on your head. The misconception is that people who know how to fight on the ground would pull guard and roll around on their backs. That isn't the case. If you look at any street fight involving a trained grappler, they secure the dominant position (typically the mount) and fight from that position.

Would I want to be rolling around on the concrete with some sociopath? No. Would I want to be able to escape some sociopath trying to dominate me on the ground? Yes. Would I want to be able to control the sociopath so that the sociopath can't do harm to me? Yes. 



> As far as rules go, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing to many people come out of the ring maimed for life.  A a few by accident, but not on purpose.  That is an element of the street.  Dier concequences.  Ask a Seal or Ranger if they want to use their ground game.  Yeah, they can, but they'll tell you they intend not to.



A seal or ranger still know the ground game because they are trained in the ground game. And those that leave the service still pursue learning Bjj and other grappling arts for their own personal protection. That should tell you something.


----------



## EdwardA

Hanzou said:


> I have, and it isn't about preference, it's about getting out of an inferior position and into a superior position. Yes, facing 2-3 guys sucks, now imagine facing 2-3 guys on the bottom of someone's mount with them raining punches down on your head. The misconception is that people who know how to fight on the ground would pull guard and roll around on their backs. That isn't the case. If you look at any street fight involving a trained grappler, they secure the dominant position (typically the mount) and fight from that position.
> 
> Would I want to be rolling around on the concrete with some sociopath? No. Would I want to be able to escape some sociopath trying to dominate me on the ground? Yes. Would I want to be able to control the sociopath so that the sociopath can't do harm to me? Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> A seal or ranger still know the ground game because they are trained in the ground game. And those that leave the service still pursue learning Bjj and other grappling arts for their own personal protection. That should tell you something.



I think you miss my point...go downtown or into the wrong neighborhood, and get into it with 2-3 bangers. If you get tied up with one of them for 1 second or so, likely you'll get stuck in the back. High movement is critical.  They actually practice and formulate this as a team.  It's how they train as a group tactic.  No accident....and they are not the only ones that train that way.  What you have to do is make contact with one and move him into the others in the first 2 seconds or your screwed.  They come at you in a triangle formation and one might hold back a couple seconds so you don't see him coming in from behind.  Even if you only see one, the other two are near by.  You have to have high movement.

This is not rare.  It happens in cities all over, every day.  I've seen if several times and had to deal with it twice.


----------



## Hanzou

EdwardA said:


> I think you miss my point...go downtown or into the wrong neighborhood, and get into it with 2-3 bangers. If you get tied up with one of them for 1 second or so, likely you'll get stuck in the back. High movement is critical.  They actually practice and formulate this as a team.  It's how they train as a group tactic.  No accident....and they are not the only ones that train that way.




Two things;

1.You’d be an idiot for doing something like that. That isn’t a self defense scenario, that’s a moron with a death wish.

2. I don’t care what martial art you practice, you’re likely to wind up on the losing end of that situation (possibly dead). So, I think it’s rather dumb to use that as some sort of counter to what I said.



> What you have to do is make contact with one and move him into the others in the first 2 seconds or your screwed.  They come at you in a triangle formation and one might hold back a couple seconds so you don't see him coming in from behind.  Even if you only see one, the other two are near by.  You have to have high movement.
> 
> This is not rare.  It happens in cities all over, every day.  I've seen if several times and had to deal with it twice.



Ive lived in the largest cities in the world and that has never happened to me, or anyone I know. Maybe the best self defense isn’t pretending to be Batman and going into places looking for trouble?


----------



## Graywalker

This is a silly question, in sports yes, in any other scenerio...it's a crap shoot.


----------



## Steve

Graywalker said:


> This is a silly question, in sports yes, in any other scenerio...it's a crap shoot.


Well, you’re half right.


----------



## Hanzou

Graywalker said:


> This is a silly question, in sports yes, in any other scenerio...it's a crap shoot.



Except....







Which group do you think will be better able to handle themselves if something were to go down?


----------



## Graywalker

Hanzou said:


> Except....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which group do you think will be better able to handle themselves if something were to go down?


The person who has actually fought outside of sports.


----------



## dvcochran

Hanzou said:


> Except....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which group do you think will be better able to handle themselves if something were to go down?



Not entirely sure of your point. Each have their merits and in this context a picture is work a 1,000 words. That said, it is just a couple of pictures. Nothing to verify the substance behind them. 
I get it. The first picture does look rather...sad in the MA context. The second picture looks totally staged and A-type centric. I would have definitely been in the latter picture in my 20's but, so what? 
I think you are leaning really had on the A-type fraternity. And this comes from an alumni. What really matters is what you do when it is just a picture of yourself.


----------



## Hanzou

Graywalker said:


> The person who has actually fought outside of sports.



Not really, since the situation of fighting are going to be different each time. I may have experience fighting a fat guy trying to smash my head in with a hammer, but that doesn't mean that I have experience dealing with a muscle head punching me in the face. The true question  is which gives you a better base to deal with a situation, and that's going to be a martial art where you're dealing with pressure. Competitive arts give you that pressure.


----------



## Hanzou

dvcochran said:


> Not entirely sure of your point. Each have their merits and in this context a picture is work a 1,000 words. That said, it is just a couple of pictures. Nothing to verify the substance behind them.
> I get it. The first picture does look rather...sad in the MA context. The second picture looks totally staged and A-type centric. I would have definitely been in the latter picture in my 20's but, so what?
> I think you are leaning really had on the A-type fraternity. And this comes from an alumni. What really matters is what you do when it is just a picture of yourself.



To be fair, the majority of people in the bottom pic aren't in their 20s. The majority of them are in their 30s and 40s.


----------



## Steve

Graywalker said:


> The person who has actually fought outside of sports.


Haha.  That genuinely made me laugh out loud.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Not really, since the situation of fighting are going to be different each time. I may have experience fighting a fat guy trying to smash my head in with a hammer, but that doesn't mean that I have experience dealing with a muscle head punching me in the face. The true question  is which gives you a better base to deal with a situation, and that's going to be a martial art where you're dealing with pressure. Competitive arts give you that pressure.


To be fair.  I don't entirely disagree with him.  I mean, someone with actual experience fighting outside of a sport may have an advantage. It gets a little more complex when you're talking about people with roughly equivalent training, skill level, and different experiences. 

What made me laugh is the implication that non-competitive martial artists have that experience of actually fighting outside of sport.  I would be genuinely surprised if 1 in 1000 had any actual fighting experience at all.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> What made me laugh is the implication that non-competitive martial artists have that experience of actually fighting outside of sport.  I would be genuinely surprised if 1 in 1000 had any actual fighting experience at all.


 
As a person who came from a noncompetitive system into a competitive system, the delusion is extreme. Frankly if I had stayed in karate, I'd be dead today. That realization greatly disturbs me.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> As a person who came from a noncompetitive system into a competitive system, the delusion is extreme.


Not everyone is deluded like you.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Not everyone is deluded like you.



No, but far too many are deluded like you.


----------



## Graywalker

Hanzou said:


> Not really, since the situation of fighting are going to be different each time. I may have experience fighting a fat guy trying to smash my head in with a hammer, but that doesn't mean that I have experience dealing with a muscle head punching me in the face. The true question  is which gives you a better base to deal with a situation, and that's going to be a martial art where you're dealing with pressure. Competitive arts give you that pressure.


Exactly, there are to many variables to claim an art is sufficient. Again, you do not seem to understand that the style is a very small percentage.

The only true pressure, is actual combat. Sure competition can help but, it means nothing if that is ALL you have done.

Why is it that you think, in an actual situation, that you will be fighting competition fighters.

To think only one specific system will work is ignorance. And, do you think full contact sparring started with the birth of MMA or the UFC? That is crazy to think so.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> As a person who came from a noncompetitive system into a competitive system, the delusion is extreme.


We all know that if you train the grappling art, you can do almost anything that you want to, your opponent will still be safe. But if you train the striking art, a powerful punch on the back of your opponent's head may kill him. 

This is why most people who train the striking art don't like to get into true competition mode. You don't mind to compete in a BJJ, Judo, or wrestling tournament. But you may think twice when you compete in a golden glove boxing.

How to solve this problem that full contact striking art competition can be dangerous? I don't have answer for it.


----------



## Hanzou

Graywalker said:


> Exactly, there are to many variables to claim an art is sufficient. Again, you do not seem to understand that the style is a very small percentage.
> 
> The only true pressure, is actual combat. Sure competition can help but, it means nothing if that is ALL you have done.
> 
> Why is it that you think, in an actual situation, that you will be fighting competition fighters.
> 
> To think only one specific system will work is ignorance. And, do you think full contact sparring started with the birth of MMA or the UFC? That is crazy to think so.



Uh no. If the style is doing something fundamental for example like teaching you footwork, endurance, and evasion, while also how to handle a punch and how to punch (Boxing), then that style is far more valuable to you than a style teaching you 500 year old movements where you mimic a dancing butterfly on a flower petal.

Take a woman who learns BJJ for example. She's going to know how to deal with a bigger, larger person on top of her trying to control her because she deals with that everyday in a BJJ class. A woman learning a standard karate or kung fu style would be completely lost in that situation because she's never dealt with it before.

And btw, I never said *one* specific system would work. I've always said there's a family of systems that will leave you better off than another family of systems that are stuck with myths and legends from hundreds of years ago.

If someone I knew were looking for martial arts to defend themselves, I would recommend them taking up Bjj, and then learn Boxing or Muay Thai, or go to a MMA gym.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We all know that if you train the grappling art, you can do almost anything that you want to, your opponent will still be safe. But if you train the striking art, a powerful punch on the back of your opponent's head may kill him.
> 
> This is why most people who train the striking art don't like to get into true competition mode. You don't mind to compete in a BJJ, Judo, or wrestling tournament. But you may think twice when you compete in a golden glove boxing.
> 
> How to solve this problem that full contact striking art competition can be dangerous? I don't have answer for it.



Yes, grappling arts definitely have a training advantage. With striking, the best you can hope for is how Boxing, Kickboxing styles, or  Muay Thai deal with striking. Of those, I think Muay Thai will give you the most well rounded training, since it employs elbows, knees, clinch throws alongside kicks and punches.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Yes, grappling arts definitely have a training advantage. With striking, the best you can hope for is how Boxing, Kickboxing styles, or  Muay Thai deal with striking. Of those, I think Muay Thai will give you the most well rounded training, since it employs elbows, knees, clinch throws alongside kicks and punches.


The striking art has a natural weakness, and that is the risk of the full contact training.

If all 100% grappling guys are willing to compete on the mat. But only 10% of the striking art guys are willing to compete in the ring, you may expect too much out of the striking art guys.

A full powerful throw on the soft mat is nothing. An elbow strike on the head can be deadly. It's not realistic to expect all striking art guys to compete in the ring.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The striking art has a natural weakness, and that is the risk of the full contact training.
> 
> If all 100% grappling guys are willing to compete on the mat. But only 10% of the striking art guys are willing to compete in the ring, you may expect too much out of the striking art guys.
> 
> A full powerful throw on the soft mat is nothing. An elbow strike on the head can be deadly. It's not realistic to expect all striking art guys to compete in the ring.



Again, Boxing, Muay Thai, Kickboxing, and MMA give you the template. Use that.

Hell, if Muay Thai can be practiced relatively safely, no other striking art has an excuse.


----------



## dvcochran

Hanzou said:


> To be fair, the majority of people in the bottom pic aren't in their 20s. The majority of them are in their 30s and 40s.


Fair enough, but I was speaking of myself in my 20's. I had worked myself out of most of the overt personality by my late 30's. But had the switch for a long time. Could still turn it on if I had to.
It is great to see a group of people who love what they are doing. That applies to both pictures. Love the "Band of Brothers" mentality. 
Go ahead and laugh but it is a real possibility that if you get some of those guys in the bottom picture outside the ring they could have real trouble in some conditions. But I suppose that is true for either picture. Walking a 1,000 miles in the other person's shoes and all. I have always said some of by best competition skill(s) had nothing to do with my MA training.


----------



## dvcochran

Hanzou said:


> Not really, since the situation of fighting are going to be different each time. I may have experience fighting a fat guy trying to smash my head in with a hammer, but that doesn't mean that I have experience dealing with a muscle head punching me in the face. The true question  is which gives you a better base to deal with a situation, and that's going to be a martial art where you're dealing with pressure. Competitive arts give you that pressure.


Ah, so now it is about pressure based training? 
There is no way you can tell from the top photo whether the they have been involved in pressure based training or not. Hell, for that matter the lower picture could be akin to a group of gym guys that do nothing body build. All show, no go. 
So, in short you are stereotyping don't you think?


----------



## Hanzou

dvcochran said:


> Ah, so now it is about pressure based training?
> There is no way you can tell from the top photo whether the they have been involved in pressure based training or not. Hell, for that matter the lower picture could be akin to a group of gym guys that do nothing body build. All show, no go.
> So, in short you are stereotyping don't you think?



I wasn't talking about the picture particularly, but yeah you can tell the top pic is a group of people who don't pressure test.


----------



## dvcochran

Hanzou said:


> I wasn't talking about the picture particularly, but yeah you can tell the top pic is a group of people who don't pressure test.


Hmm, you must be very perceptive. Don't judge a horse by it's color. But run with it. If you are wise you will learn or you will be taught sooner or later.


----------



## Hanzou

dvcochran said:


> Hmm, you must be very perceptive. Don't judge a horse by it's color. But run with it. If you are wise you will learn or you will be taught sooner or later.



Even you said that the top pic was "sad". Why are you suddenly changing your opinion?


----------



## dvcochran

Hanzou said:


> Even you said that the top pic was "sad". Why are you suddenly changing your opinion?


If I said 'sad' I should not have. I am sorry for that. I am not changing my mind. Just trying to get you to see the bigger picture. Narrow minded BJJ fanboys are sad. I did mean to say that.


----------



## Hanzou

dvcochran said:


> If I said 'sad' I should not have. I am sorry for that. I am not changing my mind. Just trying to get you to see the bigger picture. Narrow minded BJJ fanboys are sad. I did mean to say that.



You initially viewing them as sad, and now regretting calling them “sad” certainly appears to be you changing your mind. Yes, narrow minded fanboys are a sad bunch, but dishonest people are an even sadder bunch.


----------



## _Simon_

Hanzou said:


> I wasn't talking about the picture particularly, but yeah you can tell the top pic is a group of people who don't pressure test.


Wwwwwwwwwwow man. Just wow.


----------



## Steve




----------



## dvcochran

Hanzou said:


> You initially viewing them as sad, and now regretting calling them “sad” certainly appears to be you changing your mind. Yes, narrow minded fanboys are a sad bunch, but dishonest people are an even sadder bunch.


How am I being dishonest? You pointed out something I said. I apologized for it. So in your world that is being dishonest? That is some strange viewpoint. C'mon man.
Make sure your next picture is of you walking on water.


----------



## Mitlov

Hanzou said:


> I wasn't talking about the picture particularly, but yeah you can tell the top pic is a group of people who don't pressure test.



I'm not sure if they're TKD or TSD, but either way, sport competition is pretty darned common in the Korean arts, including WT TKD being in the NCAA and Olympics. Holding up a photograph of TKD and TSD as an example of people who don't engage in competitive sports is an odd choice.

You seem to be equating "sport" with "fighting to KO or submission and nothing else."  That's not what sport means.  TKD is sport. Point karate is sport. Fencing is sport. You don't have to look like a UFC heavyweight to be an athlete on a sport.


----------



## Hanzou

Mitlov said:


> I'm not sure if they're TKD or TSD, but either way, sport competition is pretty darned common in the Korean arts, including WT TKD being in the NCAA and Olympics. Holding up a photograph of TKD and TSD as an example of people who don't engage in competitive sports is an odd choice.
> 
> You seem to be equating "sport" with "fighting to KO or submission and nothing else."  That's not what sport means.  TKD is sport. Point karate is sport. Fencing is sport. You don't have to look like a UFC heavyweight to be an athlete on a sport.



Well keep in mind, I didn’t say they weren’t competitive, I said that they look like a group who aren’t pressure testing their art. There’s a big difference.

Beyond that, they could be a TKD or TSD group who doesn’t compete as well. Those also exist. They tend to be participants in videos such as these;






Notice the similar uniforms....


----------



## Mitlov

Hanzou said:


> Well keep in mind, I didn’t say they weren’t competitive, I said that they look like a group who aren’t pressure testing their art. There’s a big difference.



Pressure testing your abilities in your sport, and pressure testing your style versus other styles in multi-style competition, are two entirely different issues. And this thread, I thought, was about sport styles where athletes pressure test their abilities in sport, versus noon-sport styles where they don't.



> Beyond that, they could be a TKD or TSD group who doesn’t compete as well. Those also exist. They tend to be participants in videos such as these;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the similar uniforms....



If you don't know what the style the people in the photo do, and whether they compete in sport, and whether they compete in multi-sport open tournaments, what's the point in posting their picture at all? Shaming teenage girls and 50-somethings for not looking like a group of 22-year-old male heavyweights?


----------



## Hanzou

Mitlov said:


> Pressure testing your abilities in your sport, and pressure testing your style versus other styles in multi-style competition, are two entirely different issues. And this thread, I thought, was about sport styles where athletes pressure test their abilities in sport, versus noon-sport styles where they don't.



Yes, and the person I was responding to with that picture was talking about non-sport styles being more applicable in more scenarios than styles that have a sport element. Also Bjj athletes tend to compete against other Bjj athletes.



> If you don't know what style they do and whether they compete in sport, and whether they compete in multi-sport open tournaments, what's the point in posting their picture at all? Shaming teenage girls and 50-somethings for not looking like a group of 22-year-old male heavyweights?



Again, to be fair, the Bjj people in that pic are all middle aged, and they're not heavyweights. They just look like 22-year olds because they're competitors in a martial art that revolves around pressure testing. The guy in the front with the white gi was in his mid 30s when that pic was taken, and he's a welterweight, not a heavyweight.

Also there's a female in the Bjj picture.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> No, but far too many are deluded like you.


There's nobody as deluded as you.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> They tend to be participants in videos such as these;


There's something to be said for cherry picking. The content of that video bears little resemblance to how most competent traditional martial arts training looks like. Most TMA schools would agree that those practitioners were of poor quality.


----------



## dvcochran

Hanzou said:


> Again, to be fair, the Bjj people in that pic are all middle aged, and they're not heavyweights. They just look like 22-year olds because they're competitors in a martial art that revolves around pressure testing. The guy in the front with the white gi was in his mid 30s when that pic was taken, and he's a welterweight, not a heavyweight.


So, someone in their 30's are middle aged? Yea, that answers a lot about your posts. 
And you think All those guys do is train BJJ. Gotta call BS on that one. 
Look, up until I was 38 I was that guy. I get it and I Love the driven feeling to be 'that guy'. It is a good thing. Is is Everything? No, of course not. But from your ranting that seems to be the case for you. So has BJJ done enough for you to put you in that picture? What other training are you doing?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> Except....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which group do you think will be better able to handle themselves if something were to go down?


To be fair, the top group looks like a typical group of hobbyist martial artists and the bottom group is a bunch of world class professional athletes who would easily dominate not only an average hobbyist BJJ black belt, but also most competitive BJJ black belts.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> To be fair, the top group looks like a typical group of hobbyist martial artists and the bottom group is a bunch of world class professional athletes who would easily dominate not only an average hobbyist BJJ black belt, but also most competitive BJJ black belts.


Good point.  Though if you go to google, do a search for BJJ schools (or MMA, or Muay Thai, or Boxing, etc), and look at the pictures of the students, they tend to look competent (and usually also sweaty).  Even the kids.  Don't take my word for it.

Note, that this is not a BJJ-centric post.


----------



## Hanzou

Tony Dismukes said:


> To be fair, the top group looks like a typical group of hobbyist martial artists and the bottom group is a bunch of world class professional athletes who would easily dominate not only an average hobbyist BJJ black belt, but also most competitive BJJ black belts.



Well that was the point. The person I was originally responding to was saying that hobbyists like those would be more prepared for a violent encounter than those BJJ athletes.


----------



## Hanzou

dvcochran said:


> So, someone in their 30's are middle aged? Yea, that answers a lot about your posts.



Well life expectancy in the US is about 75-78, so yeah someone in their mid to late 30s would be (on average) halfway to the cemetery.



> And you think All those guys do is train BJJ. Gotta call BS on that one.
> Look, up until I was 38 I was that guy. I get it and I Love the driven feeling to be 'that guy'. It is a good thing. Is is Everything? No, of course not. But from your ranting that seems to be the case for you. So has BJJ done enough for you to put you in that picture? What other training are you doing?



Hey, I'm just saying that athletes like that have an advantage on hobbyist who train once or twice a week.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> Well that was the point. The person I was originally responding to was saying that hobbyists like those would be more prepared for a violent encounter than those BJJ athletes.


Yeah, but the meme image in question is clearly aiming to identify BJJ with the pro athletes and other arts (in this case KMA practitioners, judging from the uniforms) with the casual hobbyists. If the meme was just aiming to celebrate the prowess of pro athletes vs casuals in general then the top image could be BJJ hobbyists or the bottom picture could show Olympic TKD gold medalists.


----------



## drop bear

It is


Tony Dismukes said:


> To be fair, the top group looks like a typical group of hobbyist martial artists and the bottom group is a bunch of world class professional athletes who would easily dominate not only an average hobbyist BJJ black belt, but also most competitive BJJ black belts.



Yeah. So for example Kelly Sief here is traditionally a TKD guy. And has a stable of terrifying monsters.


----------



## Mitlov

Hanzou said:


> Well life expectancy in the US is about 75-78, so yeah someone in their mid to late 30s would be (on average) halfway to the cemetery.
> 
> Hey, I'm just saying that athletes like that have an advantage on hobbyist who train once or twice a week.



But you were posting about style versus style, not intensity versus intensity.

If Rafael Aghayev (professional karate athlete) was compared to a 50-year-old office worker or 14-year-old kid who did BJJ two hours per week for fun and fitness, it'd be a night-and-day difference too.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Well life expectancy in the US is about 75-78, so yeah someone in their mid to late 30s would be (on average) halfway to the cemetery.
> 
> Hey, I'm just saying that athletes like that have an advantage on hobbyist who train once or twice a week.


Some folks are bringing a lot of emotional baggage to this discussion that doesn't need to be here. 


Mitlov said:


> But you were posting about style versus style, not intensity versus intensity.
> 
> If Rafael Aghayev (professional karate athlete) was compared to a 50-year-old office worker or 14-year-old kid who did BJJ two hours per week for fun and fitness, it'd be a night-and-day difference too.


Interestingly, in a thread about competitive sport martial artists, you provide an excellent case in point.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, but the meme image in question is clearly aiming to identify BJJ with the pro athletes and other arts (in this case KMA practitioners, judging from the uniforms) with the casual hobbyists. If the meme was just aiming to celebrate the prowess of pro athletes vs casuals in general then the top image could be BJJ hobbyists or the bottom picture could show Olympic TKD gold medalists.


Tony, a similar picture of competitors (at any level) in any bjj school, not just black belts, would illustrate the same contrast.  Even in the same school, frankly, a picture of the competitors and non-competitive athletes, though to a lesser degree.


----------



## Hanzou

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, but the meme image in question is clearly aiming to identify BJJ with the pro athletes and other arts (in this case KMA practitioners, judging from the uniforms) with the casual hobbyists. If the meme was just aiming to celebrate the prowess of pro athletes vs casuals in general then the top image could be BJJ hobbyists or the bottom picture could show Olympic TKD gold medalists.



It could be. However that meme was harder to find.


----------



## drop bear

Mitlov said:


> But you were posting about style versus style, not intensity versus intensity.
> 
> If Rafael Aghayev (professional karate athlete) was compared to a 50-year-old office worker or 14-year-old kid who did BJJ two hours per week for fun and fitness, it'd be a night-and-day difference too.



Yeah but what would his core group photo look like?

Do fighters look like fighters?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> Tony, a similar picture of competitors (at any level) in any bjj school, not just black belts, would illustrate the same contrast.  Even in the same school, frankly, a picture of the competitors and non-competitive athletes, though to a lesser degree.


But then that should be what's used to illustrate the point. When you can easily find a picture of BJJ competitors and BJJ hobbyists (or TKD or kickboxing), there's no reason to complicate the point by adding in cross-style to the picture.


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> But then that should be what's used to illustrate the point. When you can easily find a picture of BJJ competitors and BJJ hobbyists (or TKD or kickboxing), there's no reason to complicate the point by adding in cross-style to the picture.


I don't know about should.  I hate that word, personally.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> I don't know about should.  I hate that word, personally.


Well the should there is in reference to illustrating the point. If you are going to illustrate a point, there are certain things that are objectively better to do that, and therefore should be done when possible. One example (and this example) is limiting variables. If he just wanted to show a picture to compare, there's no need for any sort of should. But if he wishes to make a valid point, to ensure that he does so he should be making it clear and limiting the variables.

The same way that, if you want to learn how to swim, you should get into the water. Or if you want to befriend someone, you should make some sort of contact with that person.


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Well the should there is in reference to illustrating the point. If you are going to illustrate a point, there are certain things that are objectively better to do that, and therefore should be done when possible. One example (and this example) is limiting variables. If he just wanted to show a picture to compare, there's no need for any sort of should. But if he wishes to make a valid point, to ensure that he does so he should be making it clear and limiting the variables.
> 
> The same way that, if you want to learn how to swim, you should get into the water. Or if you want to befriend someone, you should make some sort of contact with that person.


I get it..  don't get me wrong.  I just don't care for the word "should." I understand your point though.  It's hard to learn to swim without water just as it's hard to learn self defense without fighting.  And yet, here we are.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> I don't know about should.  I hate that word, personally.


Interesting; can you elaborate on 'should'? I agree that it often is a cop out word. "I should loose weight." etc...


----------



## punisher73

Here is the thing that seems to be overlooked in many discussions in TMA versus combat sports and that is the training methods in the vast majority of TMA schools.  We can all point to TMA's that can and do work well.  We can all point to TMA schools that train hard and realistic.

BUT, if we are talking in generalizations, combat sports and its methods will produce a better fighter.  Why?  Because of the nature of it.  There is so much mental toughness that goes in to being a good fighter.  We can all think about people (even in combat sports) that looked great on the pads or shadow boxing and had the physical makings of a good fighter, but hit them once and they crumbled.  It weeds out the weak, they either get mentally tougher or they quit.

There are a lot of TMA schools that guarantee a blackbelt if you keep showing up.  A person can obtain a blackbelt without ever having to really challenge themselves, there really isn't a process of weeding out the weak like there is in combat sports gyms.

I know I have been guilty of this when discussing this topic.  I make the assumption of properly taught and applied TMA's versus combat sports and approach it from that aspect, which I don't agree that combat sports always produces superior fighters.  

On the other hand, I have been to a BJJ school that no one competed (I think at the time one person did a couple tournaments) and it was only taught from the knees (no standup/takedown defense, no grip fighting, no takedowns, no breakfall skills).  How would they fair against a TMA that trained realistically and with hard contact?  BUT, that would be an exception and not the norm.

I think that realistic TMA schools are usually the exception and not the norm.  So, in general, I think combat sports do produce a better fighter.


----------



## drop bear

punisher73 said:


> Here is the thing that seems to be overlooked in many discussions in TMA versus combat sports and that is the training methods in the vast majority of TMA schools.  We can all point to TMA's that can and do work well.  We can all point to TMA schools that train hard and realistic.
> 
> BUT, if we are talking in generalizations, combat sports and its methods will produce a better fighter.  Why?  Because of the nature of it.  There is so much mental toughness that goes in to being a good fighter.  We can all think about people (even in combat sports) that looked great on the pads or shadow boxing and had the physical makings of a good fighter, but hit them once and they crumbled.  It weeds out the weak, they either get mentally tougher or they quit.
> 
> There are a lot of TMA schools that guarantee a blackbelt if you keep showing up.  A person can obtain a blackbelt without ever having to really challenge themselves, there really isn't a process of weeding out the weak like there is in combat sports gyms.
> 
> I know I have been guilty of this when discussing this topic.  I make the assumption of properly taught and applied TMA's versus combat sports and approach it from that aspect, which I don't agree that combat sports always produces superior fighters.
> 
> On the other hand, I have been to a BJJ school that no one competed (I think at the time one person did a couple tournaments) and it was only taught from the knees (no standup/takedown defense, no grip fighting, no takedowns, no breakfall skills).  How would they fair against a TMA that trained realistically and with hard contact?  BUT, that would be an exception and not the norm.
> 
> I think that realistic TMA schools are usually the exception and not the norm.  So, in general, I think combat sports do produce a better fighter.



Even the process i think is better. 

So as an example if someone trained for a grading in the same way they did a 12 week fight camp. They would come out after that grading a ton better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Even the process i think is better.
> 
> So as an example if someone trained for a grading in the same way they did a 12 week fight camp. They would come out after that grading a ton better.


Good point. I generally didn't do that, but I was generally over-trained (from a fitness perspective) for the demands of the grading. Maybe the point should be that grading should be highly demanding, from a fitness perspective.

I'm not sure where that leaves most hobbyists, who want to get as much as they can in a few hours a week (which precludes the fight camp approach). In a style like BJJ where curriculum isn't tied to rank, it's probably not an issue once people get over the ego bruising of being stuck at a lower belt.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Good point. I generally didn't do that, but I was generally over-trained (from a fitness perspective) for the demands of the grading. Maybe the point should be that grading should be highly demanding, from a fitness perspective.
> 
> I'm not sure where that leaves most hobbyists, who want to get as much as they can in a few hours a week (which precludes the fight camp approach). In a style like BJJ where curriculum isn't tied to rank, it's probably not an issue once people get over the ego bruising of being stuck at a lower belt.



Most hobbyists could fight camp. It would just be hard.


----------



## dunc

I see a lot of people really increasing their training amount and intensity in the lead up to a competition, but quite often injuring themselves as a result. Over time this takes its toll and I know many high level competitors getting into their 30s with a lot of pretty deliberating injuries

So as a middle aged hobbyist I take a different approach where I train 6-7 times a week, sometimes going light and focusing on technique, sometimes pushing myself hard, but keeping that consistent pace over the years

I've found that my body is in a much better place as a result


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Most hobbyists could fight camp. It would just be hard.


They could, but most wouldn't. It's just not something they allocate that much time to. The ones who stick around after a few years, most of those would. So doing that somewhere near BB in most arts (which is usually something in the 2-10 year range) would work. But then it's a single time, and doesn't have the same effect as doing that once or twice a year.

And I don't think most programs, being run by folks who only do this part-time, don't really have capacity to offer that kind of time intensity to a larger group.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dunc said:


> I see a lot of people really increasing their training amount and intensity in the lead up to a competition, but quite often injuring themselves as a result. Over time this takes its toll and I know many high level competitors getting into their 30s with a lot of pretty deliberating injuries
> 
> So as a middle aged hobbyist I take a different approach where I train 6-7 times a week, sometimes going light and focusing on technique, sometimes pushing myself hard, but keeping that consistent pace over the years
> 
> I've found that my body is in a much better place as a result


If you can get in enough to do that, that works well. In my late 20's and early 30's, it wasn't unusual for  me to make it to 10 classes in a week, and then teach a couple of kids' classses. That was my fitness. We'd do some basic exercises to start the class (and I'd do them for every class) and some of those classes I'd get to work out really hard. I was definitely in "fighting shape" back then. But most of the folks I trained with had kids and families and jobs where they worked 50 hours, so they made it in 2-3 classes a week (some fewer, like the pilots). Those folks did tend to take a bit of a "fight camp" approach to their brown and black belt tests, but that was a very small group.


----------



## punisher73

drop bear said:


> Even the process i think is better.
> 
> So as an example if someone trained for a grading in the same way they did a 12 week fight camp. They would come out after that grading a ton better.



I agree, that goes back to what I said about TMA's being taught and trained properly. That is how TMA's used to be originally trained and trained when it first came to this country. It was very heavily focused on being very in shape and physical fitness in addition to the hard martial training. 

If you look at the "72 Consumate Arts of Shaolin", many of the exercises correspond to modern weightlifts like the deadlift, squad, overhead press etc.  The other exercises are for developing body weapons.

Much of this hard training has been dropped in most TMA schools.


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> They could, but most wouldn't. It's just not something they allocate that much time to. The ones who stick around after a few years, most of those would. So doing that somewhere near BB in most arts (which is usually something in the 2-10 year range) would work. But then it's a single time, and doesn't have the same effect as doing that once or twice a year.
> 
> And I don't think most programs, being run by folks who only do this part-time, don't really have capacity to offer that kind of time intensity to a larger group.



Your above post says much of what I was thinking. It speaks to the broader base of practitioners and offerings. 
I would need the strict definition of a fight camp but we have people who get ready for regional/national tournaments every year. We have 2 6-week primer courses every year. One to two hours after a regular class, which is required, so a total of 3 1/2 - 4 hours/day 5 days/week. Some conditioning but mostly sparring technique and strategy, all done during live sparring. There is a peak in the middle weeks of straight sparring for endurance; longer rounds and heavily padded.
Maybe a new definition for martial need to be created. We have traditional and sport but there are more and more traditional schools that cross over into sport. I have not head of a specific name for these. Hybrid MA?

Like it or not the definition of Martial Arts is very, very wide spread.  Even breaking it down into component parts gets involved  and cumbersome. MMA? Just what falls under that umbrella? Same for TMA. And there are 'styles' that do not fit under either banner.

So, to the OP; sure competitive sport MA are superior at their given competition and Yes, that can/will a have positive effect for self defense. But it has a lot of gaps that seem to be overlooked. Like longevity, aggression control, variety, inclusivity, on and on. I doubt this is where the OP was going but they should not be overlooked.

You cannot hide the fact that there are not many 40-50 year old competitive sport people still active. Compare that in contrast to the broad TMA age range and it explains a lot.
A high percentage of our late teens to 30's age range get into the sport side, mostly locally but some go farther. It is an option we always have available.

Fun fact; one of our BB's moved to the Fresno area many years ago. At 69 she competed at the Pan American level this year. Yes, it was in sparring. No, there were no submission moves but she is one gritty old bird


----------



## Hanzou

punisher73 said:


> I agree, that goes back to what I said about TMA's being taught and trained properly. That is how TMA's used to be originally trained and trained when it first came to this country. It was very heavily focused on being very in shape and physical fitness in addition to the hard martial training.
> 
> If you look at the "72 Consumate Arts of Shaolin", many of the exercises correspond to modern weightlifts like the deadlift, squad, overhead press etc.  The other exercises are for developing body weapons.
> 
> Much of this hard training has been dropped in most TMA schools.



At the end of the day, people are running a business, and unfortunately the kiddies today can't be worked too hard or mommy and daddy will take their money elsewhere.


----------



## dvcochran

Hanzou said:


> At the end of the day, people are running a business, and unfortunately the kiddies today can't be worked too hard or mommy and daddy will take their money elsewhere.


We all get it. You think you style/system is far superior to anything else. Many of us have been there. You have beat your horse to death touting it however. Very tiring.

To add to my previous post regarding longevity in TMA, how many 4-6 year old's do you have in your MMA program? A dynamic you cannot enter in to. 
Yes, some, not all TMA schools survive financially on their younger population. Implying that this is all a school has or has to offer is misleading. 
Historically, we average 64% adults (16 and older). This year has been quite different. Doesn't look like we will even break even this year. Through May we were still running more adults than kids. Then the tide dramatically changed. I fully believe a lot of the at home parents were looking for an outlet. The numbers have gradually tilted back to normal.


----------



## Hanzou

dvcochran said:


> We all get it. You think you style/system is far superior to anything else. Many of us have been there. You have beat your horse to death touting it however. Very tiring.
> 
> To add to my previous post regarding longevity in TMA, how many 4-6 year old's do you have in your MMA program? A dynamic you cannot enter in to.
> Yes, some, not all TMA schools survive financially on their younger population. Implying that this is all a school has or has to offer is misleading.
> Historically, we average 64% adults (16 and older). This year has been quite different. Doesn't look like we will even break even this year. Through May we were still running more adults than kids. Then the tide dramatically changed. I fully believe a lot of the at home parents were looking for an outlet. The numbers have gradually tilted back to normal.



Actually, the watering down element Punisher is talking about effects BJJ as well. I was talking about ALL martial arts in that posts, not just TMAs.

Also plenty of BJJ schools have kid/children classes. My old gym's kid class was actually very well attended and full of kids. That requires owners of those schools to reduce the level of training intensity in order to retain those students. If Mikey or Susie come home crying from BJJ practice, that's money that the school potentially loses.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Actually, the watering down element Punisher is talking about effects BJJ as well. I was talking about ALL martial arts in that posts, not just TMAs.
> 
> Also plenty of BJJ schools have kid/children classes. My old gym's kid class was actually very well attended and full of kids. That requires owners of those schools to reduce the level of training intensity in order to retain those students. If Mikey or Susie come home crying from BJJ practice, that's money that the school potentially loses.


Kids pay the bills, I hear.  And truly, most of the kids who train are having a good time doing something physically strenuous and mentally challenging.  A very small percentage will stick with it for long enough to get their blue belt and join the adult classes.  But by the time they do, they are well prepared for it.  

I think the same is true for all competitive martial artists.  Look at Judo or TKD.  I mean, the kids in a TKD class where they really emphasize competition are pretty fierce, and they're good at what they're being taught to do.  Same with XMA kids.  Folks get caught up in whether it's practical for street fighting.  I don't really know or care about that one way or the other.  If we're just answering the question, are competitive sport martial artists superior, then the answer is certainly yes. Because at every level, and at every age bracket, you can see folks being taught do things, and then doing that thing based on a clear and objective standard. 

The alternative is the echo chamber that I and others have mentioned.  Punisher mentions a BJJ school that doesn't compete, among other red flags.  The point being that a lack of competition immediately results in a loss of reliable skill development.  He didn't mention the instructor's qualification.  I don't know why, but it didn't seem odd to me, because frankly, the instructor's skill level is irrelevant to the outcome.  Competition is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Actually, the watering down element Punisher is talking about effects BJJ as well. I was talking about ALL martial arts in that posts, not just TMAs.
> 
> Also plenty of BJJ schools have kid/children classes. My old gym's kid class was actually very well attended and full of kids. That requires owners of those schools to reduce the level of training intensity in order to retain those students. If Mikey or Susie come home crying from BJJ practice, that's money that the school potentially loses.


I've only seen kids classes in a couple of BJJ places, though I think all the BJJ places I visited (not a huge number) had kids classes. If nothing else, they seemed more physically demanding than most of the kids' classes I'd seen and more focused on application. Like with other styles, the quality of the kids' classes seems to depend almost entirely upon how good the instructor is with kids (both relating to them and getting them to cooperate).


----------



## Buka

The advantage of competition is fighting against very real resistance. And even more resistance as the level of competition increases.

And most enlightening, is resistance against people you've never seen before. Really can't get that in your own club. At least not as much.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> They could, but most wouldn't. It's just not something they allocate that much time to. The ones who stick around after a few years, most of those would. So doing that somewhere near BB in most arts (which is usually something in the 2-10 year range) would work. But then it's a single time, and doesn't have the same effect as doing that once or twice a year.
> 
> And I don't think most programs, being run by folks who only do this part-time, don't really have capacity to offer that kind of time intensity to a larger group.



Which is fine. But then the bar is lowered. 

If the question is, are competitive martial artists better? And they are fundamentally training harder. Because other martial artists don't want to. 

Seem a pretty simple answer.


----------



## drop bear

punisher73 said:


> I agree, that goes back to what I said about TMA's being taught and trained properly. That is how TMA's used to be originally trained and trained when it first came to this country. It was very heavily focused on being very in shape and physical fitness in addition to the hard martial training.
> 
> If you look at the "72 Consumate Arts of Shaolin", many of the exercises correspond to modern weightlifts like the deadlift, squad, overhead press etc.  The other exercises are for developing body weapons.
> 
> Much of this hard training has been dropped in most TMA schools.



Which i don't have a problem with so long as people understand that it relates directly to outcome. 

It is where people make up excuses to try to sell this lesser system as a viable alternative. When it isn't. It is a lesser alternative. 

Having a diet shake is easier than going on a diet. But I am not going to loose weight that way. As my coach says "Your body doesn't care about your feelings. You break up with your missus and eat a chocolate cake. Your body doesn't give you a pass"


----------



## punisher73

drop bear said:


> Which i don't have a problem with so long as people understand that it relates directly to outcome.
> 
> It is where people make up excuses to try to sell this lesser system as a viable alternative. When it isn't. It is a lesser alternative.
> 
> Having a diet shake is easier than going on a diet. But I am not going to loose weight that way. As my coach says "Your body doesn't care about your feelings. You break up with your missus and eat a chocolate cake. Your body doesn't give you a pass"



We are in agreement.  

There is no way you could sell a running program (ok, you probably could and people would buy it for a shortcut) that promised a Boston Marathon qualifying time with only having to run 15 minutes 3 times a week.  But, that is the equivalent that many schools sell in regards to martial arts.

My instructor has made the comment before to a group of students that were "over confident" in their skills.  He told them lets all go down to X (local bar where a lot blue collar steel workers hung out) and test your skills.  Needless to say they got the point.  He will also tell you that you can't own a technique until you have spent at least a gallon of sweat working on it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Which is fine. But then the bar is lowered.
> 
> If the question is, are competitive martial artists better? And they are fundamentally training harder. Because other martial artists don't want to.
> 
> Seem a pretty simple answer.


Yep, there's an advantage for the folks who are training harder. That's likely to concentrate in the competitive arts because of the selection bias I mentioned in another thread. Folks who don't intend to commit the time to that kind of thing don't tend to sign up for places where that's the norm.

Folks who train harder get better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

punisher73 said:


> We are in agreement.
> 
> There is no way you could sell a running program (ok, you probably could and people would buy it for a shortcut) that promised a Boston Marathon qualifying time with only having to run 15 minutes 3 times a week.  But, that is the equivalent that many schools sell in regards to martial arts.
> 
> My instructor has made the comment before to a group of students that were "over confident" in their skills.  He told them lets all go down to X (local bar where a lot blue collar steel workers hung out) and test your skills.  Needless to say they got the point.  He will also tell you that you can't own a technique until you have spent at least a gallon of sweat working on it.


Agreed. But there's certainly room for a running program that promises to improve your running performance, based upon a more limited time commitment. Say, developing a reasonable 3-mile pace.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yep, there's an advantage for the folks who are training harder. That's likely to concentrate in the competitive arts because of the selection bias I mentioned in another thread. Folks who don't intend to commit the time to that kind of thing don't tend to sign up for places where that's the norm.
> 
> Folks who train harder get better.



I don't think choosing the easy but doesn't work as well option because you can't really be bothered is technically how selection bias works.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I don't think choosing the easy but doesn't work as well option because you can't really be bothered is technically how selection bias works.


Selection bias is just a term for when two groups aren't similar because people are selected (in this case self-selected) into the groups, as opposed to random assignment.

So, yes, people who don't want to put in the hours selecting a program that doesn't expect them to is exactly an example of selection bias.


----------



## Mitlov

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. But there's certainly room for a running program that promises to improve your running performance, based upon a more limited time commitment. Say, developing a reasonable 3-mile pace.



Exactly. It's called "couch to 5k," and it's hugely popular.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Folks who train harder get better.


It's not how hard that you train. It's what technique that you train.

If A trains forms, and B trains combos such as:

- jab, cross
- jab, cross, hook
- jab, hook, cross
- jab, hook, uppercut
- jab, uppercut, cross
- ...

B will have better punching skill than A has.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Selection bias is just a term for when two groups aren't similar because people are selected (in this case self-selected) into the groups, as opposed to random assignment.
> 
> So, yes, people who don't want to put in the hours selecting a program that doesn't expect them to is exactly an example of selection bias.



No. I really think you are just flat earthing here.

The two groups are not similar because one training method works better.

Everyone can choose to adopt either method.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's not how hard that you train. It's what technique that you train.
> 
> If A trains forms, and B trains combos such as:
> 
> - jab, cross
> - jab, cross, hook
> - jab, hook, cross
> - jab, hook, uppercut
> - jab, uppercut, cross
> - ...
> 
> B will have better punching skill than A has.


It also matters how hard you train. If A trains two hours a week and B trains ten hours a week (assuming equal intensity, same technique base, same instructor), B will usually outperform A unless there's a huge difference in natural ability.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No. I really think you are just flat earthing here.
> 
> The two groups are not similar because one training method works better.
> 
> Everyone can choose to adopt either method.


The two groups start out not being similar. If selection bias is "flat earthing", then literally everyone designing scientific studies is a flat-earther, because that's one of the things they work hard to avoid.

Or maybe you're just being an ***.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The two groups start out not being similar. If selection bias is "flat earthing", then literally everyone designing scientific studies is a flat-earther, because that's one of the things they work hard to avoid.
> 
> Or maybe you're just being an ***.




The two groups start the same. Which is basically everyone in the world.

Some choose method A. Some choose method B and some choose to stay on the couch eating donuts. 

Method a works better than method b and a and b work better than eating donuts. You then conclude the evidence for a and b,s effectiveness is biased because donut eaters goanna eat donuts? And that they were all predisposed to that lifestyle. 

You have literally invented an unrelated cause for the results. 

That is exactly how flat earth theory works.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The two groups start the same. Which is basically everyone in the world.
> 
> Some choose method A. Some choose method B and some choose to stay on the couch eating donuts.
> 
> Method a works better than method b and a and b work better than eating donuts. You then conclude the evidence for a and b,s effectiveness is biased because donut eaters goanna eat donuts? And that they were all predisposed to that lifestyle.
> 
> You have literally invented an unrelated cause for the results.
> 
> That is exactly how flat earth theory works.


And the "some choose" is the selection. But go ahead and ignore that.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And the "some choose" is the selection. But go ahead and ignore that.



So you are suggesting there is selection bias because some people  choose not to do anything at all?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So you are suggesting there is selection bias because some people  choose not to do anything at all?


If you were comparing martial artists to the rest of the population, yes, selection bias would mean you couldn't compare those as equal popultions.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Yep, there's an advantage for the folks who are training harder. That's likely to concentrate in the competitive arts because of the selection bias I mentioned in another thread. Folks who don't intend to commit the time to that kind of thing don't tend to sign up for places where that's the norm.
> 
> Folks who train harder get better.


Just to be clear, though, the selection bias is rarely physical, personality, or trait based.  It's entirely about choice and motivation.  Shy, meek, sensitive, insecure, fearful, weak people train in sport arts all the time. And they often remain shy, meek, and sensitive.  But they become less insecure, less fearful, and stronger because they are building real skill.  And so, when someone like you or others looks at a school that concentrates on competitive arts, these shy, meek, and sensitive souls don't appear so, because they are competent. 

The selection bias is strictly about choosing a plan that is unlikely to work over a plan that is likely to work.   This is the main area where non sport arts let folks down, just as fad diets, get rich quick schemes, and counting on the Lotto for your retirement let people down.  There is no shortcut to developing skill.  What places that don't emphasize real skill development through application do is tantalize people with shortcuts that convince, in the same way a diet might claim you can lose weight without ever leaving your couch.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> It also matters how hard you train. If A trains two hours a week and B trains ten hours a week (assuming equal intensity, same technique base, same instructor), B will usually outperform A unless there's a huge difference in natural ability.


While there is a point of diminishing return, the rule of thumb I've heard is at least three times per week.  So, if a person trains 5 to 6 hours per week in a competitive art another person trains 10 hours per week, super hard, in a non-competitive art, I still think the competitive person will outperform the other in most, if not all, cases.  Even if it's the same art and all other things are the same.  I wouldn't be surprised if a person who trains 40 hours per week as a full time job could keep up with the skill development of someone doing the same thing about 6 hours per week but with application baked in.  That's something I'd like to see.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> The two groups start out not being similar. If selection bias is "flat earthing", then literally everyone designing scientific studies is a flat-earther, because that's one of the things they work hard to avoid.
> 
> Or maybe you're just being an ***.


I won't speak for @drop bear but I think you have it backwards.  Essentially your entire argument here is a justification for fad diets.  The logic is identical. and completely disregards results.  Some folks don't want to stop eating fried chicken and cheeseburgers.  They don't want to sweat or exercise or be uncomfortable.  And so, a certain percentage of folks want for something to just make the fat disappear.  So, they take a pill, or wear a girdle, or subscribe to a fad diet that will almost assuredly fail.

You are essentially saying that, because so many folks try fad diets that fad diets are legitimate and are just a better choice for some people, because selection bias.  Whether they work or not is irrelevant.  Your point is, while all of the people who diet want to lose weight... only those people who actually want results will choose to do the hard work.  Everyone else will choose fad diets.  And you're using that logic to justify non-competitive arts.  

In a thread about whether a competitive sport martial artist is superior, I think you're making the case for competitive arts very well.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> If you were comparing martial artists to the rest of the population, yes, selection bias would mean you couldn't compare those as equal popultions.


Now, this is an interesting.  On one hand, you're conflating people who train in non-sport arts and people who don't train at all.  I might be inclined to agree, if we're talking fighting skill.  

On the other, you're also reinforcing the main point of the thread in favor of competitive arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Just to be clear, though, the selection bias is rarely physical, personality, or trait based.  It's entirely about choice and motivation.  Shy, meek, sensitive, insecure, fearful, weak people train in sport arts all the time. And they often remain shy, meek, and sensitive.  But they become less insecure, less fearful, and stronger because they are building real skill.  And so, when someone like you or others looks at a school that concentrates on competitive arts, these shy, meek, and sensitive souls don't appear so, because they are competent.
> 
> The selection bias is strictly about choosing a plan that is unlikely to work over a plan that is likely to work.   This is the main area where non sport arts let folks down, just as fad diets, get rich quick schemes, and counting on the Lotto for your retirement let people down.  There is no shortcut to developing skill.  What places that don't emphasize real skill development through application do is tantalize people with shortcuts that convince, in the same way a diet might claim you can lose weight without ever leaving your couch.


That's not what selection bias refers to, Steve. It's a term for two populations not being directlly comparable because they don't start by random selection. Competition training will always show an advantage, because it typically has more average intensity than you see in a lot of non-competition training. And that is exaggerated by the effect of selection bias: people who want to train hard are more likely to select that path.

The same would be true in comparing, say Buka's dojo back in the day to the Judo program I trained in. His students exercised more and trained harder than we did. They'd have a strong advantage because of that. And because of that, folks who want to train hard would have been much more interested in that program.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> While there is a point of diminishing return, the rule of thumb I've heard is at least three times per week.  So, if a person trains 5 to 6 hours per week in a competitive art another person trains 10 hours per week, super hard, in a non-competitive art, I still think the competitive person will outperform the other in most, if not all, cases.  Even if it's the same art and all other things are the same.  I wouldn't be surprised if a person who trains 40 hours per week as a full time job could keep up with the skill development of someone doing the same thing about 6 hours per week but with application baked in.  That's something I'd like to see.


I wasn't making any statement about competitive vs non-competitive. You seem to be trying to counter some such argument. My point was that the intensity matters. Take a school and divide the students in half. Train one half harder, and they'll almost certainly get better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I won't speak for @drop bear but I think you have it backwards.  Essentially your entire argument here is a justification for fad diets.  The logic is identical. and completely disregards results.  Some folks don't want to stop eating fried chicken and cheeseburgers.  They don't want to sweat or exercise or be uncomfortable.  And so, a certain percentage of folks want for something to just make the fat disappear.  So, they take a pill, or wear a girdle, or subscribe to a fad diet that will almost assuredly fail.
> 
> You are essentially saying that, because so many folks try fad diets that fad diets are legitimate and are just a better choice for some people, because selection bias.  Whether they work or not is irrelevant.  Your point is, while all of the people who diet want to lose weight... only those people who actually want results will choose to do the hard work.  Everyone else will choose fad diets.  And you're using that logic to justify non-competitive arts.
> 
> In a thread about whether a competitive sport martial artist is superior, I think you're making the case for competitive arts very well.


You've completely read what you want into my statements. Literally none of that matches my comments.

Selection bias would NOT suggest fad diets are good. But I'm pretty sure you know that. You're generally more knowledgeable than this attempt.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Now, this is an interesting.  On one hand, you're conflating people who train in non-sport arts and people who don't train at all.  I might be inclined to agree, if we're talking fighting skill.
> 
> On the other, you're also reinforcing the main point of the thread in favor of competitive arts.


I'm conflating nothing. You're reading in something you want to bring up again and flog some more, though you're entirely unable - and unwilling - to explain your point. Every few weeks you'll say you're just going to drop it, then you drag it back out in the middle of some comment I made that's tangentially related.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> If you were comparing martial artists to the rest of the population, yes, selection bias would mean you couldn't compare those as equal popultions.



So when we are specifically looking at whether martial arts makes you better at martial arts.

People who do martial arts and get better at martial arts can't be compared with people who don't do martial arts and don't get better.

And this is because once you have chosen to do martial arts you have created a selection bias. 

The mere fact there is options negates being able to compare those options because of bias.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I wasn't making any statement about competitive vs non-competitive. You seem to be trying to counter some such argument. My point was that the intensity matters. Take a school and divide the students in half. Train one half harder, and they'll almost certainly get better.



No they only got better because they chose to train harder. So in reality that is selection bias.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That's not what selection bias refers to, Steve. It's a term for two populations not being directlly comparable because they don't start by random selection. Competition training will always show an advantage, because it typically has more average intensity than you see in a lot of non-competition training. And that is exaggerated by the effect of selection bias: people who want to train hard are more likely to select that path.
> 
> The same would be true in comparing, say Buka's dojo back in the day to the Judo program I trained in. His students exercised more and trained harder than we did. They'd have a strong advantage because of that. And because of that, folks who want to train hard would have been much more interested in that program.


But the point is that they are the same populations.  That's the point.  The selection bias you refer to doesn't exist because you are mistakenly presuming that there are two populations.  I don't believe that's the case. 

Or to be more precise, the two populations you refer to aren't what you think.  Group A are people who are willing to work hard to see real results and Group B are people who are looking for a quick fix that requires little effort.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I wasn't making any statement about competitive vs non-competitive. You seem to be trying to counter some such argument. My point was that the intensity matters. Take a school and divide the students in half. Train one half harder, and they'll almost certainly get better.


It's the topic of the thread, Gerry.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You've completely read what you want into my statements. Literally none of that matches my comments.
> 
> Selection bias would NOT suggest fad diets are good. But I'm pretty sure you know that. You're generally more knowledgeable than this attempt.


Exactly right.  My point is that there is no selection bias.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I'm conflating nothing. You're reading in something you want to bring up again and flog some more, though you're entirely unable - and unwilling - to explain your point. Every few weeks you'll say you're just going to drop it, then you drag it back out in the middle of some comment I made that's tangentially related.


I'm trying to explain it to you now, if you'll listen for a moment.  And once again, it's the topic of the thread.  I'm literally posting on topic.


----------



## Steve

Let's try this.  If I wanted to learn to fire a pistol well, but I don't like loud noises, the smell of gunpowder, or the way those yellow sunglasses looks.  I could get over those objections I have, because they are intrinsic to the activity.  Or I could go to Billy-Joe Jim-Bob's Firing Range, where he says he can teach people to fire a weapon with no noise, no gunpowder smells, and no funny looking sunglasses.

Now one might argue that there is selection bias here, because folks who don't like loud noises, the smell of gunpower, or those funny yellow glasses will naturally gravitate to Bill-Joe Jim-Bob's firing range.  But that's not actually true, because folks who want to actually learn to fire a pistol understand that the loud noise and the smell of gunpowder are intrinsic to the activity.  You don't get the output without accepting the input.  And folks who are inclined to try out Jim-Bob's easy bake firing range only need to share one characteristic: they don't want to do the essential work needed to learn the skill.  Maybe they don't like noise or yellow glasses or the smell of gunpowder.  But just as likely, they're lazy and looking for a short cut.  

I want to learn to cook, but don't like hot things or touching raw food, or washing my hands.  I want to lose weight, but I'm unwilling to change my diet or exercise.  I want to learn to water ski, but don't want to get wet.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> Let's try this.  If I wanted to learn to fire a pistol well, but I don't like loud noises, the smell of gunpowder, or the way those yellow sunglasses looks.  I could get over those objections I have, because they are intrinsic to the activity.  Or I could go to Billy-Joe Jim-Bob's Firing Range, where he says he can teach people to fire a weapon with no noise, no gunpowder smells, and no funny looking sunglasses.



Laser trainers are quite useful, and have no noise (well, ok, the gun still goes click), no gunpowder smells, and no funny looking sunglasses. Sue and I use them regularly. In addition to the target games, we have been known to shoot the zombies on screen while watching _The Walking Dead_. Headshots only. First one to hit it gets the point.
Could a person learn to shoot _only_ by using laser trainers? Sure. They wouldn't be as good at controlling recoil, but that only means a series of shots will be over a slightly longer time period. And there are plenty of people shooting real ammo who don't have good recoil control, for various reasons. If the laser shooter has strong wrists, they may well have better recoil control than an ammo shooter with weak wrists. Since the thread is about people who compete, it's worth noting that Olympic pistol shooting is done with a .22. There's really no significant recoil from these, which would make real ammo training even less necessary. There's not much noise either.
So maybe noise, gunpowder smells and funny looking sunglasses aren't really intrinsic to pistol shooting?


----------



## isshinryuronin

Dirty Dog said:


> So maybe noise, gunpowder smells and funny looking sunglasses aren't really intrinsic to pistol shooting?



May not be intrinsic, but all part of the fun and enjoyment.  I love the smell of gunpowder in the morning.


----------



## Dirty Dog

isshinryuronin said:


> May not be intrinsic, but all part of the fun and enjoyment.  I love the smell of gunpowder in the morning.



Sure, for some. But as Steve points out, it's reasonable to assume that there are people who would like to shoot, but don't want one or more of those things. And it's nice to know that there are options for them to do just that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So when we are specifically looking at whether martial arts makes you better at martial arts.
> 
> People who do martial arts and get better at martial arts can't be compared with people who don't do martial arts and don't get better.
> 
> And this is because once you have chosen to do martial arts you have created a selection bias.
> 
> The mere fact there is options negates being able to compare those options because of bias.


You're misusing the term and the concept. A person doesn't have selection bias. A study may have one, though. So, when we look at martial arts in either of those directions (none vs any, or competitive vs not), we have to also consider the effect of that selection bias. Selection bias doesn't mean there's no other effect, just that you have to allow for it. So, with competitive vs. noncompetitive MA, there's almost certainly better development of general fighting skills on average in the competitive arts. But if we try to quantify that including the entirety of both populations, we're going to get skewed numbers...because of the selection bias. In this case, it's pretty easy to understand. Someone who wants to train hard several days a week simply won't selet my program - I only teach once a week. They're also probably not going to choose a place where their fee gets them two classes a week with possible access to a couple more, and all training at a moderate level. But they could choose a place like where you train, where they have access to folks who like to train hard and staff who can push them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No they only got better because they chose to train harder. So in reality that is selection bias.


No, because in this case they didn't get to choose. We divided the group in half. If we did that randomly, there's no selection bias. But then you're probably aware of that, just trying to push a narrative that I'm saying something I'm not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> But the point is that they are the same populations.  That's the point.  The selection bias you refer to doesn't exist because you are mistakenly presuming that there are two populations.  I don't believe that's the case.
> 
> Or to be more precise, the two populations you refer to aren't what you think.  Group A are people who are willing to work hard to see real results and Group B are people who are looking for a quick fix that requires little effort.


Nope. They come from the same base population, but they aren't randomly assigned. They choose to move into one or the other population. If that choice is on any basis that doesn't randomize, it presents the possibility of selection bias in the results.

As for those two groups, you're correct about A. B may simply be folks who understand they're not getting a quick fix (haven't met many who thought they were who stuck around more than a few weeks), but found something that fit their priorities and/or preferences. Not wanting to compete and not wanting to train 10-0 hours a week isn't the same as laziness. And you know that, you're just purposely using inflammatory language to try to derail this, because you don't really have a point to make.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> It's the topic of the thread, Gerry.


Yes, but your post was an attempt to reframe what I said into something you could argue a certain way. Pretty petty.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Exactly right.  My point is that there is no selection bias.


And you're wrong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I'm trying to explain it to you now, if you'll listen for a moment.  And once again, it's the topic of the thread.  I'm literally posting on topic.


Except you're not explaining it. You're attacking a position I haven't taken, while trying to claim confirmation bias doesn't exist in a sittuation where it really does. If you don't understand the term, I'll be happy to try to explain it better. If you do, then you're just not trying.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Let's try this.  If I wanted to learn to fire a pistol well, but I don't like loud noises, the smell of gunpowder, or the way those yellow sunglasses looks.  I could get over those objections I have, because they are intrinsic to the activity.  Or I could go to Billy-Joe Jim-Bob's Firing Range, where he says he can teach people to fire a weapon with no noise, no gunpowder smells, and no funny looking sunglasses.
> 
> Now one might argue that there is selection bias here, because folks who don't like loud noises, the smell of gunpower, or those funny yellow glasses will naturally gravitate to Bill-Joe Jim-Bob's firing range.  But that's not actually true, because folks who want to actually learn to fire a pistol understand that the loud noise and the smell of gunpowder are intrinsic to the activity.  You don't get the output without accepting the input.  And folks who are inclined to try out Jim-Bob's easy bake firing range only need to share one characteristic: they don't want to do the essential work needed to learn the skill.  Maybe they don't like noise or yellow glasses or the smell of gunpowder.  But just as likely, they're lazy and looking for a short cut.
> 
> I want to learn to cook, but don't like hot things or touching raw food, or washing my hands.  I want to lose weight, but I'm unwilling to change my diet or exercise.  I want to learn to water ski, but don't want to get wet.


You're mixing case studies and population studies, tossing in some sloppy reducto ad absurdum (I think I've recalled the term properly).

Let me clean that up for you. First, we need two groups to sort into. There are two places offering a chane to do this. One teaches (from the ground up) for IDPA competition. The other teaches basic target shooting. There are 300 people in the area who want to learn to shoot. Some of them want to see how well they shoot in competition against other people (they're far more likely to choose the IDPA-oriented place). Some of them want to get as good as they can at handling a handgun (based on the description and their vague goal, they could choose either). Another group just wants to learn basic safety and how to make it go "bang" reliably (they're more likely to choose the non-IDPA place, because they don't care about learning the rules of IDPA and just want to work with basics).

We don't really know if either place is any good, but we can already guess which marketing is more likely to appeal. That's where selection bias comes in. In this case (with the parameters we have so far) that selection bias probably doesn't affect us, because we haven't talked about time put in or what they do in the schools.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Nope. They come from the same base population, but they aren't randomly assigned. They choose to move into one or the other population. If that choice is on any basis that doesn't randomize, it presents the possibility of selection bias in the results.
> 
> As for those two groups, you're correct about A. B may simply be folks who understand they're not getting a quick fix (haven't met many who thought they were who stuck around more than a few weeks), but found something that fit their priorities and/or preferences. Not wanting to compete and not wanting to train 10-0 hours a week isn't the same as laziness. And you know that, you're just purposely using inflammatory language to try to derail this, because you don't really have a point to make.


Someone's using purposefully inflammatory language to derail this thread.  But it's not me.  If you spent as much time discussing things as you do scolding people for even on topic posts. 

People who do crash diets just have different priorities and/or preferences.  Right?  Never mind that those priorities aren't losing weight.  Maybe they just appreciate the joy of crash dieting.  It's not the weight at all.  Right?   Just priorities. Just preferences. 



gpseymour said:


> Yes, but your post was an attempt to reframe what I said into something you could argue a certain way. Pretty petty.


Was it?  Not from my perspective.  Maybe you and I just simply disagree.  For example, I think your continued ad hominem attacks on a few posters who just don't agree with you is petty. 



gpseymour said:


> And you're wrong.


Okay. 



gpseymour said:


> Except you're not explaining it. You're attacking a position I haven't taken, while trying to claim confirmation bias doesn't exist in a sittuation where it really does. If you don't understand the term, I'll be happy to try to explain it better. If you do, then you're just not trying.


Or maybe I'm explaining it, but you can't seem to process that some folks just fundamentally disagree with you, because you feel like that disagreement is a judgement on you and on your preferences. 



gpseymour said:


> You're mixing case studies and population studies, tossing in some sloppy reducto ad absurdum (I think I've recalled the term properly).
> 
> Let me clean that up for you. First, we need two groups to sort into. There are two places offering a chane to do this. One teaches (from the ground up) for IDPA competition. The other teaches basic target shooting. There are 300 people in the area who want to learn to shoot. Some of them want to see how well they shoot in competition against other people (they're far more likely to choose the IDPA-oriented place). Some of them want to get as good as they can at handling a handgun (based on the description and their vague goal, they could choose either). Another group just wants to learn basic safety and how to make it go "bang" reliably (they're more likely to choose the non-IDPA place, because they don't care about learning the rules of IDPA and just want to work with basics).
> 
> We don't really know if either place is any good, but we can already guess which marketing is more likely to appeal. That's where selection bias comes in. In this case (with the parameters we have so far) that selection bias probably doesn't affect us, because we haven't talked about time put in or what they do in the schools.


however, you're missing the salient point here.  The gun analogy wasn't about competition shooting vs non-competitive shooting.  It's about doing something or not doing something.  Let's be real here.  In your school, how long do you think someone would need to train to prevail in a fight with a person who trains MMA 6 hours a week for two years?  I mean, this guy attacks your student.  Be honest.  How long before one of your students could hope to physically defend him or herself from someone who trains 6 hours per week for 2 years in BJJ, or a wrestler, or a judoka, or a TKD athlete (what are they called?) or a boxer?  Is the answer 2 years?  I don't believe that.  Five years?  10?  Never?

Even if it's not "never."  Even if we are generous about it, if the question is, "Are competitive sport martial artists superior?" I'm honestly astounded that the answer isn't obvious.   Derailing the thread with a red herring argument about preferences doesn't change that answer.  I mean, sure, some folks may prefer to ride a bicycle than to ride a motorcycle.  But if you need to get from Seattle to Orlando in 5 days, the bicycle just isn't going to get you there.  It's not viable, and so hand wringing about priorities and preferences just isn't relevant.  Do some people like to be ninjas?  Sure, and there's not a darn thing wrong with it.  But that doesn't mean they're learning anything practical.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> While there is a point of diminishing return, the rule of thumb I've heard is at least three times per week.  So, if a person trains 5 to 6 hours per week in a competitive art another person trains 10 hours per week, super hard, in a non-competitive art, I still think the competitive person will outperform the other in most, if not all, cases.  Even if it's the same art and all other things are the same.  I wouldn't be surprised if a person who trains 40 hours per week as a full time job could keep up with the skill development of someone doing the same thing about 6 hours per week but with application baked in.  That's something I'd like to see.



I don't think so. There is just much more to competitive performance than training hours. The best visual analogy I can think of is football. There are always guys who get through practices with the minimum required but really shine on game day. 
And quality of training/trainer has a Lot to do with the time required. 
And some people just process certain information better/faster than others. 
And some people have more physicality and coordination. 
The list keeps going.

I get the impression you are blurring average MA training/classes with competitive training. Average training/class should be very physical and mentally challenging for the average working Joe. Competitive training should be a step to several steps above average. 

Your post got me thinking about my time competing. It was when I was a LEO and I worked at least 40 hours/week. Plus 10-20 hours/week on the farm. Add 20-30 hours running our school. Plus training 6 days/week at least 3 hrs/day. I look back now and wonder how I did it? That is the intangible I am talking about. Good old fashioned 'want-to'.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Someone's using purposefully inflammatory language to derail this thread.  But it's not me.  If you spent as much time discussing things as you do scolding people for even on topic posts.
> 
> People who do crash diets just have different priorities and/or preferences.  Right?  Never mind that those priorities aren't losing weight.  Maybe they just appreciate the joy of crash dieting.  It's not the weight at all.  Right?   Just priorities. Just preferences.
> 
> Was it?  Not from my perspective.  Maybe you and I just simply disagree.  For example, I think your continued ad hominem attacks on a few posters who just don't agree with you is petty.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> Or maybe I'm explaining it, but you can't seem to process that some folks just fundamentally disagree with you, because you feel like that disagreement is a judgement on you and on your preferences.
> 
> however, you're missing the salient point here.  The gun analogy wasn't about competition shooting vs non-competitive shooting.  It's about doing something or not doing something.  Let's be real here.  In your school, how long do you think someone would need to train to prevail in a fight with a person who trains MMA 6 hours a week for two years?  I mean, this guy attacks your student.  Be honest.  How long before one of your students could hope to physically defend him or herself from someone who trains 6 hours per week for 2 years in BJJ, or a wrestler, or a judoka, or a TKD athlete (what are they called?) or a boxer?  Is the answer 2 years?  I don't believe that.  Five years?  10?  Never?
> 
> Even if it's not "never."  Even if we are generous about it, if the question is, "Are competitive sport martial artists superior?" I'm honestly astounded that the answer isn't obvious.   Derailing the thread with a red herring argument about preferences doesn't change that answer.  I mean, sure, some folks may prefer to ride a bicycle than to ride a motorcycle.  But if you need to get from Seattle to Orlando in 5 days, the bicycle just isn't going to get you there.  It's not viable, and so hand wringing about priorities and preferences just isn't relevant.  Do some people like to be ninjas?  Sure, and there's not a darn thing wrong with it.  But that doesn't mean they're learning anything practical.


See? You're back to trying to make this about my training approach, which wasn't really the point of anything I posted. I simply said something about confirmation bias and you went off the rails.

I guess we're done with this. You used to be capable of actually discussing things, now you just jump in and push an agenda (mostly trying to talk about how much you don't like what you think I do).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> I don't think so. There is just much more to competitive performance than training hours. The best visual analogy I can think of is football. There are always guys who get through practices with the minimum required but really shine on game day.
> And quality of training/trainer has a Lot to do with the time required.
> And some people just process certain information better/faster than others.
> And some people have more physicality and coordination.
> The list keeps going.
> 
> I get the impression you are blurring average MA training/classes with competitive training. Average training/class should be very physical and mentally challenging for the average working Joe. Competitive training should be a step to several steps above average.
> 
> Your post got me thinking about my time competing. It was when I was a LEO and I worked at least 40 hours/week. Plus 10-20 hours/week on the farm. Add 20-30 hours running our school. Plus training 6 days/week at least 3 hrs/day. I look back now and wonder how I did it? That is the intangible I am talking about. Good old fashioned 'want-to'.


There are certainly outliers (there was a famous golfer - I've forgotten which one - who didn't even play or practice much except tournaments). But on the whole the way people train for competition is more focused and intense than the way folks train in non-competitive arts, in my experience. That focus and intensity makes a big diffference. If the folks training for competition trained with less focus and intensity, they wouldn't get as good. And it's the focus on competition that drives that, for a lot of folks. I've seen a few places that trained with that kind of intensity but didn't compete much (can't think of any place that trained with that kind of focus regularly without competition driving it, though I can think of some people who did), but it's less common than the places I've seen that were competition-focused.

Mind you, some places that train with competition in mind are focused, but not all that intense. This was my experience in Judo.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> See? You're back to trying to make this about my training approach, which wasn't really the point of anything I posted. I simply said something about confirmation bias and you went off the rails.
> 
> I guess we're done with this. You used to be capable of actually discussing things, now you just jump in and push an agenda (mostly trying to talk about how much you don't like what you think I do).


I'm not talking about you at all.  I'm talking to you about training.  I'll take your emotional tirade above as your answer.   I think you take this personally because, on some level, you understand that it's 100% accurate. 

And as always, just to say that it's entirely okay to not train in a competitive sport arts if that's your preference.  You just need to understand that you're very likely not learning to fight and you're probably not learning a lot of self defense, either.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> however, you're missing the salient point here.  The gun analogy wasn't about competition shooting vs non-competitive shooting.  It's about doing something or not doing something.  Let's be real here.  In your school, how long do you think someone would need to train to prevail in a fight with a person who trains MMA 6 hours a week for two years?  I mean, this guy attacks your student.  Be honest.  How long before one of your students could hope to physically defend him or herself from someone who trains 6 hours per week for 2 years in BJJ, or a wrestler, or a judoka, or a TKD athlete (what are they called?) or a boxer?  Is the answer 2 years?  I don't believe that.  Five years?  10?  Never?
> 
> Even if it's not "never."  Even if we are generous about it, if the question is, "Are competitive sport martial artists superior?" I'm honestly astounded that the answer isn't obvious.   Derailing the thread with a red herring argument about preferences doesn't change that answer.  I mean, sure, some folks may prefer to ride a bicycle than to ride a motorcycle.  But if you need to get from Seattle to Orlando in 5 days, the bicycle just isn't going to get you there.  It's not viable, and so hand wringing about priorities and preferences just isn't relevant.  Do some people like to be ninjas?  Sure, and there's not a darn thing wrong with it.  But that doesn't mean they're learning anything practical.



This reminds me of the Aikido instructor in Eastern Europe who kept asking questions about the effectiveness of his style. Eventually he set up a sparring match with MMA guy just to test out his skills, and he couldn’t do anything as the MMA practitioner punched and kicked him at will. The Aikido master shut down his dojo, moved to the US, learned Bjj and MMA and is now an amateur MMA fighter.

That story resonated with me because I had a similar experience with a boxer while I practiced Shotokan. You’re fed a steady diet of BS and you think you can defend yourself when you really can’t.

I think anyone in a TMA should honestly answer your question, and reevaluate as necessary.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I'm not talking about you at all.  I'm talking to you about training.  I'll take your emotional tirade above as your answer.   I think you take this personally because, on some level, you understand that it's 100% accurate.
> 
> And as always, just to say that it's entirely okay to not train in a competitive sport arts if that's your preference.  You just need to understand that you're very likely not learning to fight and you're probably not learning a lot of self defense, either.


Okay, play it that way. Nothing you're ascribing to me in this post actually reflects what I posted. And you continue to make the same unsupported binary claim.

EDIT: By the way, it's entirely dishonest to say you're not talking about me, when the post I quoted had you asking about my students. That's just a flat-out lie.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> This reminds me of the Aikido instructor in Eastern Europe who kept asking questions about the effectiveness of his style. Eventually he set up a sparring match with MMA guy just to test out his skills, and he couldn’t do anything as the MMA practitioner punched and kicked him at will. The Aikido master shut down his dojo, moved to the US, learned Bjj and MMA and is now an amateur MMA fighter.
> 
> That story resonated with me because I had a similar experience with a boxer while I practiced Shotokan. You’re fed a steady diet of BS and you think you can defend yourself when you really can’t.
> 
> I think anyone in a TMA should honestly answer your question, and reevaluate as necessary.


I've actually addressed similar questions before. And I think Steve knows he stacked that question. My students train once a week (I only teach one class) for 90 minutes. He wants to compare that to someone who trains 6 hours a week. Wouldn't matter how good I was, nor even if every student competed regularly.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Laser trainers are quite useful, and have no noise (well, ok, the gun still goes click), no gunpowder smells, and no funny looking sunglasses. Sue and I use them regularly. In addition to the target games, we have been known to shoot the zombies on screen while watching _The Walking Dead_. Headshots only. First one to hit it gets the point.
> Could a person learn to shoot _only_ by using laser trainers? Sure. They wouldn't be as good at controlling recoil, but that only means a series of shots will be over a slightly longer time period. And there are plenty of people shooting real ammo who don't have good recoil control, for various reasons. If the laser shooter has strong wrists, they may well have better recoil control than an ammo shooter with weak wrists. Since the thread is about people who compete, it's worth noting that Olympic pistol shooting is done with a .22. There's really no significant recoil from these, which would make real ammo training even less necessary. There's not much noise either.
> So maybe noise, gunpowder smells and funny looking sunglasses aren't really intrinsic to pistol shooting?



The idea though is there is some sort of section of the community that prefer shooting lasers to real guns.

So instead of lasers or real guns being two different methods we can compare. It is really hard to tell because the people attracted to lets say lasers just all happen to be better shooters.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No, because in this case they didn't get to choose. We divided the group in half. If we did that randomly, there's no selection bias. But then you're probably aware of that, just trying to push a narrative that I'm saying something I'm not.



I am blatantly making fun of an incredibly silly idea. One that give me the opportunity to discount every comparison everywhere. 

Unless I have forced these choices on people at gunpoint which of course never happens. 

Even if this was some sort of a blind trial. They would have chosen to do this experiment and so therefore selection bias. 

I have exactly the reverse idea of this regarding martial arts.

Instead of people doing what they want and the outcome becomes dependent on natural ability or proclivities. 

They do what they need to do so they can change their outcomes to suit their desires.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Okay, play it that way. Nothing you're ascribing to me in this post actually reflects what I posted. And you continue to make the same unsupported binary claim.
> 
> EDIT: By the way, it's entirely dishonest to say you're not talking about me, when the post I quoted had you asking about my students. That's just a flat-out lie.


I asked you a question you are not answering.  I asked you for your opinion based on your experience.  I'm interested in an answer.   In a thread about competitive martial artists.  I asked it in as clear and direct a manner as I could think of.  You haven't answered.  But you could answer it, rather than chide me for having an opinion that I suspect you agree with.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I've actually addressed similar questions before. And I think Steve knows he stacked that question. My students train once a week (I only teach one class) for 90 minutes. He wants to compare that to someone who trains 6 hours a week. Wouldn't matter how good I was, nor even if every student competed regularly.


Level the playing field and don't personalize it.  Someone generic person who trains in your style at another school.  Or who trains ninutsu or  whatever.   The assertion you made had to do with effort and intensity.  That's the point.  Not about how you specifically run your school. Jesus, man.  Get over yourself.  

So, someone who trains bjj 10 hours a week in a school that doesn't compete vs a person who trains 6 hours a week at a bjj where they do.  My money is on the latter.   And the question remains, even training 10 hours a week in a style where you don't compete ... In your experience where is the breakeven point?    Does the non competitors ever build sufficient skill to prevail against a competitor who has trained a fraction of the time?


----------



## dvcochran

I have come to realize the OP is a setup. It is so broad and random the answer is a moving target.

First the definition of competitive in context comes into question. What is meant by 'competitive? Competitive to what or who? To what degree?

Sport. A word that is the bane of some martial artists. Again, in context does sport blur with competitive?

Artist in the OP title is unusual and intriguing. Does it infer the upper echelon of the group in discussion or one from the average? Or is it simply a slur on a long used title?

Superior. Superior to what?

The OP, @Hanzou , is an experienced and informed practitioner of Martial Arts. As this thread has devolved I wish the OP would elaborate on where he/she hoped the thread would go. In an effort to help.


----------



## punisher73

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. But there's certainly room for a running program that promises to improve your running performance, based upon a more limited time commitment. Say, developing a reasonable 3-mile pace.



Absolutely there is room.  But, it is advertised exactly what it is (such as "couch to 5k ready").  In MA's, there are many schools that promise that they have the ultimate art and will turn you into the ultimate fighter without the requisite blood, sweat and tears.  That is the issue I see.


----------



## Hanzou

dvcochran said:


> The OP, @Hanzou , is an experienced and informed practitioner of Martial Arts. As this thread has devolved I wish the OP would elaborate on where he/she hoped the thread would go. In an effort to help.



Honestly the answer to those questions should be in the OP and subsequent responses.


----------



## dvcochran

Hanzou said:


> Honestly the answer to those questions should be in the OP and subsequent responses.



I read through the whole 18 pages. Surprisingly my questions are not answered in any conclusive way. Specific to each person experiences, yes. And I think that is the most important way to answer the question. 
The consistent theme of professional fighters being above the standard could be called an exception I suppose but as some posts pointed out training from different eras may factor even some of that out. 
@Steve had some of the best post on the topic I think. But they were also largely from a singular perspective. 
@Tony Dismukes has a very good post about his experience from ninjutsu to BJJ. 
After reading the posts it makes me realize how fortunate I have been in the way I was raised and the training I have received. I wrestled and played football throughout high school and college and had a great competitive career. I have never worked out anywhere that did not spar with heavy contact on a regular basis. @Buka 's comment on his kind of training experience is typical in my experience. Possibly this is where your perspective gets skewed.  

So I am no stranger competition. This is where Tony's post is most relevant and why I asked my questions. Sparring and competition specific to a style is just that and done everywhere, including BJJ. You, yourself admitted BJJ is not as strong at standup fighting and kicking. Kicking/punching styles are not going to be as good at ground and pound. In all my bar room fights very few of them went to the ground. And this is very true in law enforcement where going to the ground usually means they were resisting. Truth be told there is less danger for the adversary on the ground in most cases. 
Being a wrestler I have never felt uncomfortable going to the ground but that is not the OP's question nor do I yet know what the real question is but can definitely tell the OP is leading and/or baiting. Please clarify if I am wrong or get to the real question(s).
In my competition days no one could tell me there was a better style or team than mine. Same can be said for anybody who is/was really competitive, regardless of style. 
I think a more cogent and relative question would be pressure tested styles/classes vs. non-pressure tested styles/classes. Semantics? Yes, I think so. 
Especially with the messed up year we have had a Lot of people have not been able to train, let alone compete, roll, or pressure test. The only outlier that presents itself here are the things that you cannot pressure test at full power/speed on a live opponent. That does Not mean they cannot be practiced to proficiency with modern equipment. Hell, we did it without modern equipment pretty darn well. I would also say they the skills much more often used in self defense and by LEO. Carnal fighting skills are an okay thing to pursue But that is very different from the basis and meaning behind most martial arts. I learned carnal fighting skills growing up, from my family and in school sports. I did not know how to reconcile them into something usable in the real world until I got proficient in martial arts. Not sure it will but I hope that makes sense. 
One thing that is certain; name changes are one of the easiest and most successful marketing tools out there. But statistically and in reality only about 20% of a product or material are ever really new. The remaining 80% are nothing more than a rehash of another product or material. This is consistent no matter the industry, martial arts and physical conditioning included. 
Like I always say; a white horse painted grey is still a white horse.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I am blatantly making fun of an incredibly silly idea. One that give me the opportunity to discount every comparison everywhere.
> 
> Unless I have forced these choices on people at gunpoint which of course never happens.
> 
> Even if this was some sort of a blind trial. They would have chosen to do this experiment and so therefore selection bias.
> 
> I have exactly the reverse idea of this regarding martial arts.
> 
> Instead of people doing what they want and the outcome becomes dependent on natural ability or proclivities.
> 
> They do what they need to do so they can change their outcomes to suit their desires.


You're blatantly abusing the term. If eveyone in a population chooses something, there's no bias inside that population. So, no, the folks choosing to participate doesn't create a variable between the groups. But I'm done explainign to you. I'm pretty sure you actually get the idea already, and are just purposely acting stupid with it.

And you've gone far afield from where selection bias came into this, where you were making assertions about people's motivations and what they are willing to do and trying to compare a competitive MMA or BJJ program to the students I teach. Folks interested in competition aren't looking for a once-a-week maximum number of classes. They self-select out. It wouldn't matter how good my class was, that's not enough time to prep someone for serious competition. Your club's 12-week program (as you explained it to me) includes enough hours to cover a few years of my classes. That's a much better approach for someone who wants to ramp up quickly for competition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I asked you a question you are not answering.  I asked you for your opinion based on your experience.  I'm interested in an answer.   In a thread about competitive martial artists.  I asked it in as clear and direct a manner as I could think of.  You haven't answered.  But you could answer it, rather than chide me for having an opinion that I suspect you agree with.


How long would someone have to train with me, once a week for 90 minutes, to get as good as someone who trains 10-20 hours a week for a couple of years? Probably many years.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Level the playing field and don't personalize it.  Someone generic person who trains in your style at another school.  Or who trains ninutsu or  whatever.   The assertion you made had to do with effort and intensity.  That's the point.  Not about how you specifically run your school. Jesus, man.  Get over yourself.
> 
> So, someone who trains bjj 10 hours a week in a school that doesn't compete vs a person who trains 6 hours a week at a bjj where they do.  My money is on the latter.   And the question remains, even training 10 hours a week in a style where you don't compete ... In your experience where is the breakeven point?    Does the non competitors ever build sufficient skill to prevail against a competitor who has trained a fraction of the time?


My assertion wasn't what you are suggesting it was. Get over it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

punisher73 said:


> Absolutely there is room.  But, it is advertised exactly what it is (such as "couch to 5k ready").  In MA's, there are many schools that promise that they have the ultimate art and will turn you into the ultimate fighter without the requisite blood, sweat and tears.  That is the issue I see.


I agree.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> How long would someone have to train with me, once a week for 90 minutes, to get as good as someone who trains 10-20 hours a week for a couple of years? Probably many years.


That's not the question, and it's not the topic of the thread.  You're once again personalizing this and missing the point as a result.  You spoke about intensity. 

Let's say you have some folks who train in a BJJ school with intensity 10 hours per week, every week, in a school that does not compete at all.  After a year, do you think that person could defend him/herself from someone who trains half the time (about 5 hours every week) but in a competitive environment, where competition is encouraged?  I don't think this person would have a chance.

What about after 2 years?  After two years, the non-competitive person would have 1040 hours of training.  After 1040 hours, one would expect some degree of competence.  Do you think that person could competently defend him/herself from someone with literally 50% of the hours of training, but in a competitive environment?  I don't think this person would have a chance.  It is an open question whether this person would be able to defend him or herself competently from someone who is untrained but at a similar fitness level.  

What if the non-competitive person has 5 years of training, and the competitive person has 2 years of training?  After five years, the non-competitive person would have logged about 2,600 hours of training.  Do you think that person could competently defend him/herself from someone who has trained for 2 years, about 5 to 6 hours per week in a competitive environment?  I still don't think this person would have a chance.  And again, I think it's an open question whether this person would have any applicable skill against a motivated but untrained assailant. 

What about after 10 years?  At this point, this person has logged 5,200 hours of training... 10 hours every week.  If a person trained in, let's say MMA for a fraction of the time (2 years at about 5 hours per week = 520 hours) at a competitive school... this person would literally have 1/10th of the training hours as the non-competitive person.  Do you think the non-competitor would prevail if attacked by someone training in MMA for only 2 years at 5 hours per week?  I really don't believe so.  I think maybe, at about 10 years, you might start to see some difference in performance between this person and someone who is untrained.

Point is, in a thread about whether competitive sport martial artists are superior, the answer is just not debatable.  Of course they are.  All day long, they are.  The only way they wouldn't be is to start getting creative and bringing in things like Chris Parker's "what if's".  What if he broke his ankle stepping on a pebble?  What if he has a bone spur that acts up?  What if he has a soft spot for puppies and sees my screen background of my Corgi?  But, while good for a laugh, doesn't at all address the topic at hand.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> My assertion wasn't what you are suggesting it was. Get over it.


It wasn't about effort and intensity?  What was it about, then?  

Once again, the question is very simple.  Are competitive sport martial artists superior?  The answer is obvious, regardless of effort and intensity.   Point is, you're muddling a simple truth with chaff.   Preference, priorities, intensity, and effort are all things you've mentioned in this thread.  None of those things matters, if the topic at hand is results.  A person may prefer to lose weight without changing eating habits or exercising.  But the results don't care about your preferences.  One might prioritize comfort over discomfort, but the results don't care about your priorities, either.  You may train with a high level of intensity or frequency, but if your training is inefficient and lacks any application, your results will speak for themselves.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I agree.


What's the functional difference between a school that assures you will become an "ultimate fighter without the requisite blood, sweat, and tears," and a school that assures you will become an expert in self defense without the "requisite blood, sweat, and tears?"  I honestly don't see any difference between one and the other.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> That's not the question, and it's not the topic of the thread.  You're once again personalizing this and missing the point as a result.  You spoke about intensity.


 Didn't you just ask that question a few posts ago? That's the one Hanzou was referring to. Not sure how answering a question becomes wrong.



> Let's say you have some folks who train in a BJJ school with intensity 10 hours per week, every week, in a school that does not compete at all.  After a year, do you think that person could defend him/herself from someone who trains half the time (about 5 hours every week) but in a competitive environment, where competition is encouraged?  I don't think this person would have a chance.


Depends how they train. All else being equal (what drills they use, intensity of training, instructor knowledge and skill, variety of training partners, etc.), yes, I think they'd have a decent chance. Especially if they worked in a context of rules different from what the competitor is specifically trained for (so Judo rules, or something).

The real issue, IMO, is lost in your strident assertions. I think the competitive school has a distinct advantage because some of those "all else" things I listed above aren't likely to be equal.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> It wasn't about effort and intensity?  What was it about, then?


It wasn't that a competitve school and non-competitive school are equal except for intensity, and that nothing else matters.

Though it does seem that your assertion is mostly that nothing but competition matters. Which is bananas.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> What's the functional difference between a school that assures you will become an "ultimate fighter without the requisite blood, sweat, and tears," and a school that assures you will become an expert in self defense without the "requisite blood, sweat, and tears?"  I honestly don't see any difference between one and the other.


I've never heard a school assert that latter. You keep trying to make (to me and some others) the point that we and/or others are making such claims. Sorry, you're wrong a lot.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You're blatantly abusing the term. If eveyone in a population chooses something, there's no bias inside that population. So, no, the folks choosing to participate doesn't create a variable between the groups. But I'm done explainign to you. I'm pretty sure you actually get the idea already, and are just purposely acting stupid with it.
> 
> And you've gone far afield from where selection bias came into this, where you were making assertions about people's motivations and what they are willing to do and trying to compare a competitive MMA or BJJ program to the students I teach. Folks interested in competition aren't looking for a once-a-week maximum number of classes. They self-select out. It wouldn't matter how good my class was, that's not enough time to prep someone for serious competition. Your club's 12-week program (as you explained it to me) includes enough hours to cover a few years of my classes. That's a much better approach for someone who wants to ramp up quickly for competition.



That is the opposite of selection bias. Where a person will do better if he trains more effectively.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> That is the opposite of selection bias. Where a person will do better if he trains more effectively.


You're confounding the issues. Selection bias exists. That doesn't invalidate the idea that a person who trains more effectively gets better. They are not conflicting principles.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> That's not the question, and it's not the topic of the thread.  You're once again personalizing this and missing the point as a result.  You spoke about intensity.
> 
> Let's say you have some folks who train in a BJJ school with intensity 10 hours per week, every week, in a school that does not compete at all.  After a year, do you think that person could defend him/herself from someone who trains half the time (about 5 hours every week) but in a competitive environment, where competition is encouraged?  I don't think this person would have a chance.
> 
> What about after 2 years?  After two years, the non-competitive person would have 1040 hours of training.  After 1040 hours, one would expect some degree of competence.  Do you think that person could competently defend him/herself from someone with literally 50% of the hours of training, but in a competitive environment?  I don't think this person would have a chance.  It is an open question whether this person would be able to defend him or herself competently from someone who is untrained but at a similar fitness level.
> 
> What if the non-competitive person has 5 years of training, and the competitive person has 2 years of training?  After five years, the non-competitive person would have logged about 2,600 hours of training.  Do you think that person could competently defend him/herself from someone who has trained for 2 years, about 5 to 6 hours per week in a competitive environment?  I still don't think this person would have a chance.  And again, I think it's an open question whether this person would have any applicable skill against a motivated but untrained assailant.
> 
> What about after 10 years?  At this point, this person has logged 5,200 hours of training... 10 hours every week.  If a person trained in, let's say MMA for a fraction of the time (2 years at about 5 hours per week = 520 hours) at a competitive school... this person would literally have 1/10th of the training hours as the non-competitive person.  Do you think the non-competitor would prevail if attacked by someone training in MMA for only 2 years at 5 hours per week?  I really don't believe so.  I think maybe, at about 10 years, you might start to see some difference in performance between this person and someone who is untrained.
> 
> Point is, in a thread about whether competitive sport martial artists are superior, the answer is just not debatable.  Of course they are.  All day long, they are.  The only way they wouldn't be is to start getting creative and bringing in things like Chris Parker's "what if's".  What if he broke his ankle stepping on a pebble?  What if he has a bone spur that acts up?  What if he has a soft spot for puppies and sees my screen background of my Corgi?  But, while good for a laugh, doesn't at all address the topic at hand.


Those are lot of what-ifs that leave a ton of variables out. I have seen 'competitive' schools that were anything but and non competitive schools that rocked and really went hard. More than hard enough to make up a good bit of the gap. 
Some people are not going to do well in true competition no matter what kind of pressure training they get. And some people are born with a competitive spirit and would excel in a non competitive environment AND be far ahead of the curve if/when they competed. 
And while the average would have to lean to the competitive schools there are enough outliers to upset your argument.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Didn't you just ask that question a few posts ago? That's the one Hanzou was referring to. Not sure how answering a question becomes wrong.
> 
> 
> Depends how they train. All else being equal (what drills they use, intensity of training, instructor knowledge and skill, variety of training partners, etc.), yes, I think they'd have a decent chance. Especially if they worked in a context of rules different from what the competitor is specifically trained for (so Judo rules, or something).
> 
> The real issue, IMO, is lost in your strident assertions. I think the competitive school has a distinct advantage because some of those "all else" things I listed above aren't likely to be equal.


Okay.  I will take you at your word.  


gpseymour said:


> I've never heard a school assert that latter. You keep trying to make (to me and some others) the point that we and/or others are making such claims. Sorry, you're wrong a lot.


Lol.  You're kidding.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You're confounding the issues. Selection bias exists. That doesn't invalidate the idea that a person who trains more effectively gets better. They are not conflicting principles.



Isn't this selection bias idea designed specifically to invalidate the idea that a person who trains more effectively gets better?

Because you can say they got better Because they were a special kind of person. Not due to the method they used.


----------



## Steve

I'm still curious how some folks can accept that you can't become an ultimate fighter without blood, sweat, and tears, but somehow can become a self defense expert without the same.  I mean, in most things, effort seems essential.  

Though to be clear, effort doesn't guarantee results, if the training is disconnected from the results.  As I said earlier, the only selection bias going on is among people who are looking for results or people who are looking for an easy fix.  

But the issue at hand isn't those things.  It's whether competitive martial artists are superior.  I interpret the root question to be whether competitive training models are superior. I find it telling that in several pages of posts, no one has really suggested otherwise.  The thread has become derailed by red herrings about preference, priorities, and the voodoo of self defense.    

Earlier in this thread, I described a situation where average folks are separated into four groups randomly, eliminating any potential selection bias.  I shared my expected outcomes with you all.  And several pages later, here we are, reading @gpseymour 's attempts to make it all about himself.  

In a healthy school that encourages competition and trains students with a competitive mindset, an average person, with average motivation, can learn to be a competent mixed martial artist by training 5 or 6 hours every week and competing once or twice per year.  It's predictable and reliable.  If you put this into the process, you get that out of the process.  Every time.  And it's independent of style.  Ninjutsu would be improved by a robust competitive model.  Wing Chun would be improved by a robust competitive model.  And any competition based art will rapidly devolve without it.


----------



## Steve

To be clear about this selection bias thing, what bothers me about the logic of it is that it disregards results.  If comfort, preference, and priorities other than results supplant results as a goal, then I think you will find an art that suits you.  You will be comfortable.  Your preferences will be respected, and your priorities will be addressed.  You should expect these things to reflect in the outcome.  

If you're a person who is unwilling to fight, but wants to learn how to fight... you have a dilemma.  There is an internal conflict with your stated goals.  @gpseymour would say, no problem.  There are schools out there that aren't competitive which cater to people who don't want all of that discomfort or fighting stuff.  He would say, these people will gravitate to these schools.  And they may or may not.  But no one really likes to be uncomfortable and a lot of people don't enjoy fighting.  These aren't really different pools of people.  It's just people who prioritize results over other things, whether that other thing is discomfort, fear, ego, or something else.


----------



## Buka

This is one strange fricken' thread.

Considering what I _think_ it was initially created to cause, it did so nicely.  Quite functional, well done. Pip pip!


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> This is one strange fricken' thread.
> 
> Considering what I _think_ it was initially created to cause, it did so nicely.  Quite functional, well done. Pip pip!


Strange how?  Do you mean strange as in unsettling or alien?  Or strange as in unfamilar or exotic?  Or strange as in distant or estranged?  

"Strange" is a strange choice of words.


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> This was a question asked in my other thread and I thought it warranted its own thread. There is a slight disdain for sports and competition among traditionalists within the martial arts. It even pops up in my style Brazilian Jiujitsu, despite the fact that what brought Bjj to prominence was sport and competition. There is a group of people within Bjj who dislike what competition has done to the art, and like to hammer in the idea that sport dilutes the self defense aspect of the art.
> 
> While there is some merit to that point, there is another inescapable fact; Competition and sport (particularly MMA) have kept Bjj "honest" in that it forces the style to never drift too far into having its own head up its ****. For example, after Bjj exploded on the scene via the early UFCs, numerous other grappling systems emerged to try to supplant it as the main grappling art of the emerging sport. At first, Bjj exponents (mainly the Gracies) pushed a sort of purity message and refused to embrace other grappling styles, saying that their system of grappling was superior to all others. However, after the Gracies got beat by grapplers who had cross-trained in Bjj, other Bjj schools embraced other grappling forms. Over two decades later, it would be hard to argue that Bjj isn't an overall better martial art than it was when it first exploded on the scene in the 1990s.
> 
> Beyond general MA improvement, it would be a bit silly to believe that your average MA hobbyist is a better martial artist than a professional fighter. Again, when I look into my own martial art, I look at guys like Ryan Gordon, Keenan Cornelius, JT Torres, Marcelo Garcia, Ryan Hall, etc. and recognize that they would absolutely destroy me. There are videos of competitive Bjj players who roll against entire schools and submit students in that school within a matter of minutes if not seconds. Even the black belt instructors are easily dealt with, and considering that I would struggle with the average Bjj black belt, the fact that these people are several magnitudes better than them is something to think about.
> 
> Which brings us back to the general question; Are competitive sport martial artists superior to non competitive martial artists? I simply can't see how they aren't. Beyond grappling, look at the various showcases of traditional Chinese martial artists going up against MMA and sport fighters. Universally, the traditional martial artists lose, and many of the people they lose to aren't even professional fighters. Pushing this up a notch, if Jon Jones or Khabib walked into your dojo, could your instructor beat them in a fight? Bringing this down a notch would your traditional karate instructor be able to stand toe to toe against an amateur boxer? These are questions to consider because we continue to run across people who say that since their style includes wrist locks, throws, kicks, and kata, they have an advantage over a boxer because "the boxer only has punches".
> 
> I would argue that the boxer has more than punches. They have conditioning, durability, endurance, and fighting experience.
> 
> Anyway, I'm interested in your thoughts.



I would say quite the contrary that sport martial arts has erroded BJJ but not the striking arts.

There are too many strategies in sport BJJ that do no work in MMA and self defense, that have become a mainstay


----------



## Steve

Acronym said:


> I would say quite the contrary that sport martial arts has erroded BJJ but not the striking arts.
> 
> There are too many strategies in sport BJJ that do no work in MMA and self defense, that have become a mainstay


Competition has been a part of BJJ since its creation in the early 20th century.  There has literally never been a version of BJJ that is not competitive.  It is intrinsic to the style.

I think you might have in mind restrictive rule sets, like the IBJJF format.  I can agree somewhat that a single, restrictive ruleset might be a problem.  But it's not reasonable to conclude that competition is bad based on that (or conversely, to imply that lack of competition is good).


----------



## Acronym

Steve said:


> Competition has been a part of BJJ since its creation in the early 20th century.  There has literally never been a version of BJJ that is not competitive.  It is intrinsic to the style.



Gracie Jiujitsu was not a sport martial art, unless you consider street fighting a sport. Gracie Jiujitsu encompasses defense to strikes in a guard which a sport school will not teach you, since striking is forbidden


----------



## Steve

Acronym said:


> Gracie Jiujitsu was not a sport martial art, unless you consider street fighting a sport. Gracie Jiujitsu encompasses defense to strikes in a guard which a sport school will not teach you, since striking is forbidden


The Gracies have always competed, whether through single challenge matches, the Gracie Challenge, the UFC, Vale Tudo, and the literal involvement in the creation of the CBJJ and the IBJJF.  I mean, come on.  Competition is intrinsic to the style.

As I said above in an edit, I think you might have in mind restrictive rule sets, like the IBJJF format. I can agree somewhat that a single, restrictive ruleset might be a problem. But it's not reasonable to conclude that competition is bad based on that (or conversely, to imply that lack of competition is good).


----------



## Acronym

Steve said:


> The Gracies have always competed, whether through single challenge matches, the Gracie Challenge, the UFC, Vale Tudo, and the literal involvement in the creation of the CBJJ and the IBJJF.  I mean, come on.  Competition is intrinsic to the style.
> 
> As I said above in an edit, I think you might have in mind restrictive rule sets, like the IBJJF format. I can agree somewhat that a single, restrictive ruleset might be a problem. But it's not reasonable to conclude that competition is bad based on that (or conversely, to imply that lack of competition is good).



No hold barred challenge matches is not sport martial arts. There were originally two branches of the Gracies that went into different directions, one sport, the other self defense and challenge matches only.


----------



## Steve

Acronym said:


> No hold barred challenge matches is not sport martial arts. There were originally two branches of the Gracies that went into different directions, one sport, the other self defense and challenge matches only.


LOL.  Okay.  So, then the challenge matches were spontaneous and to the death?   Once again, just to be clear, I think you have in mind a very limited definition of competition.  I disagree with your definition.  I mean, clearly, there are rules even in a no holds barred competition. 

Even Mitsuyo Maeda was a competitor who came into Brazil after travelling around taking on all comers as a representative of Kano Jujutsu.  As I said before, competition is intrinsic to the style.  It's baked in and always has been.


----------



## Acronym

Steve said:


> LOL.  Okay.  So, then the challenge matches were spontaneous and to the death?   .



So if I don't kill people in a street fights I have by definition engaged in sports?


----------



## Acronym

Steve said:


> Even Mitsuyo Maeda was a competitor who came into Brazil after travelling around taking on all comers as a representative of Kano Jujutsu.  As I said before, competition is intrinsic to the style.  It's baked in and always has been.



Maeda was not a Gracie. He taught the Gracies Jiujitsu which they later modified into their own style.


----------



## Steve

Acronym said:


> So if I don't kill people in a street fights I have by definition engaged in sports?


I mean, killing people certainly isn't sport, if that's what you're implying.  Your post is so ridiculous, I can't really tell if you're kidding or not.  But seriously, if you and I get together at a pre-arranged place and time, and participate in some physical activity with mutually agreed upon rules... yeah, that would be sport.  Certainly, that would be competition.


----------



## Steve

Acronym said:


> Maeda was not a Gracie. He taught the Gracies Jiujitsu which they later modified into their own style.


Maeda isn't a Gracie?  I had no idea.


----------



## Acronym

Steve said:


> I mean, killing people certainly isn't sport, if that's what you're implying.  Your post is so ridiculous, I can't really tell if you're kidding or not.  But seriously, if you and I get together at a pre-arranged place and time, and participate in some physical activity with mutually agreed upon rules... yeah, that would be sport.  Certainly, that would be competition.



So their dojo fights and beach altercations were sacrioned by an organization? If it's not sactioned by an international body then it's not a sport.


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> So their dojo fights and beach altercations were sacrioned by an organization? If it's not sactioned by an international body then it's not a sport.



Helio Gracie's fight with Kimura was a sanctioned event. As was the NHB Vale Tudo matches where Gracie JJ got its rep as a fighting art.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Acronym said:


> So their dojo fights and beach altercations were sacrioned by an organization? If it's not sactioned by an international body then it's not a sport.


That's a real stretch.

Here's the definition of sport: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.

As an example: Me playing hockey with friends, we'd play full games following standard rules and everything, in an abandoned parking lot in our neighborhood. If that's not sport, what would you call it? It fits the above definition. 

A second example, if you don't consider the above one sports.: Intramural sports are a thing. They've got sports in the name. If I'm part of a local soccer league, is that a sport, even though it's not sactioned by an international body? 

If you still don't consider that a sport: What about the NCAA or NFL? Those are only national, do the football games played within their organizations count as sports?


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> Helio Gracie's fight with Kimura was a sanctioned event. As was the NHB Vale Tudo matches where Gracie JJ got its rep as a fighting art.



They did not get their reptuation from vale tudo competitons. Dojo fights were going on all the time between rivalling schools.


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> I would say quite the contrary that sport martial arts has erroded BJJ but not the striking arts.
> 
> There are too many strategies in sport BJJ that do no work in MMA and self defense, that have become a mainstay



Really? Which sport BJJ strategies would you say don't work in MMA?


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> They did not get their reptuation from vale tudo competitons. Dojo fights were going on all the time between rivalling schools.



Uh yeah they did. Sure there were dojo fights throughout Brazil, but it was the televised NHB matches with other arts where they got their fame.


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> Uh yeah they did. Sure there were dojo fights throughout Brazil, but it was the televised NHB matches with other arts where they got their fame.



Who cares what made them famous? The crucial element is lost in 99% of todays schools and that's defense to strikes in a guard, because the sport won't allow it. So what happened is that a lot of modern day students tried out MMA and lost to ground and pound


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> Who cares what made them famous? The crucial element is lost in 99% of todays schools and that's defense to strikes in a guard, because the sport won't allow it. So what happened is that a lot of modern day students tried out MMA and lost to ground and pound



You mean like Angela Lee, Garry Tonon, Ryan Hall, and McKenzie Dern? They appear to be handling themselves quite well. Even Kron did pretty good considering all he was doing was Guard Pulls.


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> You mean like Angela Lee, Garry Tonon, Ryan Hall, and McKenzie Dern? They appear to be handling themselves quite well. Even Kron did pretty good considering all he was doing was Guard Pulls.



Kron did awful. He never beat anyone good.


----------



## Steve

Acronym said:


> So their dojo fights and beach altercations were sacrioned by an organization? If it's not sactioned by an international body then it's not a sport.


Okay.  So, it's not competition if it's not sanctioned by some international governing body?  Come on.  That's silly.

Let's consider this.  When you play a round of golf with your friends, is that sport?  Is it a sanctioned event?  When kids play basketball at recess, is that sport?  Is it sanctioned?  Are these things competition?  I would say that these things are not sanctioned in the way you seem to use the term.  But I would certainly consider both to be examples of sport and of competition.  

What about regional or local sports that may have regional or local governing organizations, but are not international? 

The word "sport" has a lot of different definitions.  This is the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that a defining characteristic of sport is that there must be an international sanctioning body.  I really don't think you've thought this through very well.


----------



## Acronym

Steve said:


> Okay.  So, it's not competition if it's not sanctioned by some international governing body?  Come on.  That's silly.
> 
> Let's consider this.  When you play a round of golf with your friends, is that sport?  Is it a sanctioned event?  When kids play basketball at recess, is that sport?  Is it sanctioned?  Are these things competition?  I would say that these things are not sanctioned in the way you seem to use the term.  But I would certainly consider both to be examples of sport and of competition.
> 
> What about regional or local sports that may have regional or local governing organizations, but are not international?
> 
> The word "sport" has a lot of different definitions.  This is the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that a defining characteristic of sport is that there must be an international sanctioning body.  I really don't think you've thought this through very well.



For a global martial arts sport, it would be an international body included. Stop giving analogies to things that are not martial arts in a thread about martial arts.

If you fight NHB where anything but killing each other is prohibited, then you are engaging in organized fighting, not sport. The sole purpose is beating your opponent, not entertaining the crowd.


----------



## Steve

Acronym said:


> Kron did awful. He never beat anyone good.


I mean, he's 5-1 as a professional.  Anyone fighting on a professional MMA card, even at the local level, is going to be more skilled than most. I'm guessing he'd handle anyone on this forum relatively easily.


----------



## Steve

Acronym said:


> For a global martial arts sport, it would be an international body included. Stop giving analogies to things that are not martial arts in a thread about martial arts.
> 
> If you fight NHB where anything but killing each other is prohibited, then you are engaging in organized fighting, not sport. The sole purpose is beating your opponent, not entertaining the crowd.


I think you're entire position is absurd.  This thread is about "competitive sport martial artists".  So, it's about sport.  It's also about competition.  And it's about martial artists who are also those two things.  

The disconnect here is in your last statement.  I think if you are engaging in organized fighting, you are by definition engaging in competitive sport.  The former being a subset of the latter.  All poodles are dogs, though not all dogs are poodles.


----------



## Acronym

Steve said:


> I mean, he's 5-1 as a professional.  Anyone fighting on a professional MMA card, even at the local level, is going to be more skilled than most. I'm guessing he'd handle anyone on this forum relatively easily.



BJJ is the worst base to have in MMA right now. That is just a fact


----------



## Steve

Acronym said:


> BJJ is the worst base to have in MMA right now. That is just a fact


Well, that's actually an opinion.  It's also not the subject of this thread.  The topic of the thread is whether competitive sport martial artists are superior to non-competitive, non-sport martial artists.

I have to say, you're cracking me up this morning.  Thank you.  With everything going on, I needed the laugh.


----------



## Acronym

Steve said:


> Well, that's actually an opinion.  It's also not the subject of this thread. .



I guess you don't see the connection then.


----------



## Acronym

Steve said:


> I think if you are engaging in organized fighting, you are by definition engaging in competitive sport.  The former being a subset of the latter.  All poodles are dogs, though not all dogs are poodles.



So if I am doing underground, NHB street fights, I can be said to do sports in my free time? You think that's an apt description of what I'm doing simply because they are organized?


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> BJJ is the worst base to have in MMA right now. That is just a fact



Is that why no one enters MMA without at least a blue belt worth of BJJ experience?



Acronym said:


> Kron did awful. He never beat anyone good.



Yes, a 5-1 record with your only loss being a decision is doing "awful" in professional fighting....


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> Is that why no one enters MMA without at least a blue belt worth of BJJ experience?



Blue belt is not much of a base. That's considered in the beginner level range of belts. MMA fights are decided by punches far more often than subs.


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> Yes, a 5-1 record with your only loss being a decision is doing "awful" in professional fighting....



You can be 200-0 if you fight bums. He failed against an over the hill gatekeeper.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> I mean, killing people certainly isn't sport, if that's what you're implying.  Your post is so ridiculous, I can't really tell if you're kidding or not.  But seriously, if you and I get together at a pre-arranged place and time, and participate in some physical activity with mutually agreed upon rules... yeah, that would be sport.  Certainly, that would be competition.


I clicked agree but felt compelled to clarify my opinion on the term competition. If your search the definition of 'competition' it refers back to compete so:
com·pete
/kəmˈpēt/

_verb_

strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same.
This is where I have  hard time understanding some peoples perception or standard of the word competition. For me "get together at a pre-arranged place and time, and participate in some physical activity with mutually agreed upon rules" is not competition. That is more akin to training and/or training with standards which we all do. It is not  a competition until the agreed upon rules include defining a winner. No one, and I mean no one trains, practices, rolls, goes to class, or whatever with the idea that 'establishing superiority' is a must all the time. Burnout would occur quickly with that mindset. And this is part of the competitive switch that is turned on/off. 

I am just trying to better understand your train of thought on several posts regarding competition. Are you 'competing' every time you work out? Not to include the mental competition we all have with ourselves. 

FWIW,I fully agree that @Acronym is off base and being rather silly.


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> Blue belt is hardly a base. That's considered in the beginner level range of belts. MMA fights are decided by punches far more often than subs.



33% of MMA fights are TKO, 20% are by Sub. Also the fight being stopped by a  Ground and pound is considered a TKO.


----------



## Acronym

dvcochran said:


> FWIW,I fully agree that @Acronym is off base and being rather silly.



I'm not the one who defines non sport fighting as: "to the death".


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> Also the fight being stopped by a  Ground and pound is considered a TKO.



Which is my point. You don't learn ground and pound in a modern day BJJ school. When you were asking about competitive sports I'm assuming you weren't referring to vale tudo?


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> Blue belt is not much of a base. That's considered in the beginner level range of belts. MMA fights are decided by punches far more often than subs.



I never said it was a base. I said that if you have a martial art that everyone is forced to train in because if they don't know it they're toast in MMA, that means the MA in question isn't as useless as you seem to think it is.

Also Blue belt isn't beginner level. It's mid-level. You're expected to be able to beat black belts of other MAs at Blue belt level in BJJ.



Acronym said:


> Which is my point. You don't learn ground and pound in a modern day BJJ school. When you were asking about competitive sports I'm assuming you weren't referring to vale tudo?



Uh yes you do. Maybe not in the strictly sport schools, but in the self defense and MMA oriented schools you still do.


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> I never said it was a base. I said that if you have a martial art that everyone is forced to train in because if they don't know it they're toast in MMA, that means the MA in question isn't as useless as you seem to think it is.
> 
> Also Blue belt isn't beginner level. It's mid-level. You're expected to be able to beat black belts of other MAs are Blue belt level in BJJ.



If you don't train striking you're toast as well. I wrote that it's the worst base. Do you know what base means?


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> Uh yes you do. Maybe not in the strictly sport schools, but in the self defense and MMA oriented schools you still do.



And most BJJ schools are competitive.


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> You're expected to be able to beat black belts of other MAs at Blue belt level in BJJ.
> 
> .



I have never seen that definition given.


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> If you don't train striking you're toast as well. I wrote that it's the worst base. Do you know what base means?



Sure, but there's multiple forms of striking you can take up. Some learn striking from Karate, others learn it from Muay Thai, some learn it from Boxing.

Everyone has to learn Bjj to be competitive in MMA.

Also did you miss the old Gracies in Action vids? They punched and kicked people all the time.



Acronym said:


> And most BJJ schools are competitive.



What's your point? BJJ schools have always been competitive. Like @Steve said, that goes back to Maeda and later the Gracies in Brazil.


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> What's your point? BJJ schools have always been competitive. Like @Steve said, that goes back to Maeda and later the Gracies in Brazil.



They are oriented towards the IBJJF rules, meaning ground and pound is absent.


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> Sure, but there's multiple forms of striking you can take up. Some learn striking from Karate, others learn it from Muay Thai, some learn it from Boxing.



All forms of full contact striking are better bases for fighting than BJJ in todays UFC.


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> They are oriented towards the IBJJF rules, meaning ground and pound is absent.



So you believe that since someone participates in a competition they NEVER train other aspects?

https://www.jiujitsutimes.com/video-bjj-black-belt-ryan-hall-vs-aggressive-drunk-guy/

Here's sport BJJ champ Ryan Hall dealing with a drunk guy assailant trying to attack him. You really think Hall doesn't know that he could pound the guy's face into hamburger at any point?


----------



## dvcochran

Acronym said:


> I'm not the one who defines non sport fighting as: "to the death".


I am not aware of anyone claiming that.


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> Here's sport BJJ champ Ryan Hall dealing with a drunk guy assailant trying to attack him. You really think Hall doesn't know that he could pound the guy's face into hamburger at any point?



I wrote "defense to ground and pound in a guard"


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> All forms of full contact striking are better bases for fighting than BJJ in todays UFC.



Not according this this;
Which Fighting Styles Generate the Most UFC/MMA Champions?


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> I wrote "defense to ground and pound in a guard"



Then enjoy this video where sport BJJ guys deal with the ground and pound from bigger and heavier attackers.






Get with it man, you're behind the curve.


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> Not according this this;
> Which Fighting Styles Generate the Most UFC/MMA Champions?



The pool of competitors ultimately decide which form of striking that is the most relevant. As it stands now with most people having a strong college background in wrestling, western boxing is believed to be the best striking base. Had BJJ been the most popular grappling background, then Muay Thai would have probably been rated above boxing, because the Thai clinch would have been more relevant. With wrestling nullifying Thai clinches, you are basically left with non clinch aspects of striking to pick from.


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> Then enjoy this video where sport BJJ guys deal with the ground and pound from bigger and heavier attackers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get with it man, you're behind the curve.



You don't know what he crosstrains.


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> The pool of competitors ultimately decide which form of striking that is the most relevant. As it stands now with most people having a strong college background in wrestling, western boxing is believed to be the best striking base. Had BJJ been the most popular grappling background, then Muay Thai would have probably been rated above boxing, because the Thai clinch would have been more relevant. With wrestling nullifying Thai clinches, you are basically left with non clinch aspects of striking to pick from.



You said that BJJ was a worse base than striking arts. That chart completely contradicts what you argued.



Acronym said:


> You don't know what he crosstrains.



Who is "he"? There's three guys in that vid, and all of those guys are sport BJJ practitioners from Renzo Gracie/John Danaher. Those guys used nothing but IBJJF tactics in that vid.


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> You said that BJJ was a worse base than striking arts. That chart completely contradicts what you argued.



 BJJ mastery is irrelevant against a group of high level college wrestlers who won't take it to the ground, and can freely decide whether it goes to the ground or not depending on the G&P defense of the fighter.. That means the best striker wins the fight, and that means that striking is more relevant than bjj


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> BJJ mastery is irrelevant against a group of high level college wrestlers who won't take it to the ground, and can freely decide whether it goes to the ground or not depending on the G&P defense of the fighter.. That means the best striker wins the fight, and that means that striking is more relevant than bjj



So we've moved from how competition has watered down BJJ (which showed you were wrong), to BJJ being the worst base in MMA (which again showed you were wrong), to sport BJJ being ineffective against ground and pound tactics (which once again showed you were wrong). Now you want to talk about a "BJJ master" against a group of "high level college wrestlers".

When you find a topic to stick to, let me know so we can discuss it.


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> So we've moved from how competition has watered down BJJ (which showed you were wrong), to BJJ being the worst base in MMA (which again showed you were wrong), to sport BJJ being ineffective against ground and pound tactics (which once again showed you were wrong). Now you want to talk about a "BJJ master" against a group of "high level college wrestlers".
> 
> When you find a topic to stick to, let me know so we can discuss it.



How do you get good at something you don't do? If the school does not train defense to G&P, and you show me someone who handles it, then he is not doing *because* of his training but *in* *spite* of it. Assuming he doesn't crosstrain in MMA.


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> How do you get good at something you don't do? If the school does not train defense to G&P, and you show me someone who handles it, then he is not doing *because* of his training but *in* *spite* of it. Assuming he doesn't crosstrain in MMA.



So you're saying that those highly trained BJJ guys didn't learn G&P defense from their obvious BJJ training? Then where did they pick it up from? What other grappling art did they learn the John Danaher leg lock system from other than 4th degree BJJ black belt John Danaher himself who teaches out of Renzo Gracie JJ in NYC?


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying that those highly trained BJJ guys didn't learn G&P defense from their obvious BJJ training? Then where did they pick it up from? What other grappling art did they learn the John Danaher leg lock system from outside from 4th degree BJJ black belt John Danaher himself who teaches out of Renzo Gracie JJ in NYC?



Your average BJJ school does not teach any striking, whether it be offensively or defensively.

And that is because they are sport oriented and the sport does not contain strikes.


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> Your average BJJ school does not teach any striking, whether it be offensively or defensively.
> 
> And that is because they are sport oriented and the sport does not contain strikes.



So now we've moved on from G&P defense to striking....

Can we please....


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> So now we've moved on from G&P defense to striking....
> 
> Can we please....



That is the consequence of sport BJJ!


----------



## Steve

Acronym said:


> I guess you don't see the connection then.


LOL.  Clearly not.


----------



## Steve

Acronym said:


> So if I am doing underground, NHB street fights, I can be said to do sports in my free time? You think that's an apt description of what I'm doing simply because they are organized?


Of course it's sport. It's also competitive.  It's probably not legal.  It might be very dangerous.  But yes, an underground, NHB fight club would definitely meet the definition of both competition and sport.


----------



## Steve

Acronym said:


> Which is my point. You don't learn ground and pound in a modern day BJJ school. When you were asking about competitive sports I'm assuming you weren't referring to vale tudo?


Is vale tudo sport?  Is MMA sport?  Would someone who does MMA be considered by you to be a competitive sport martial artist? 

You're clearly taking a principled stand of some kind, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is.


----------



## dvcochran

Acronym said:


> BJJ mastery is irrelevant against a group of high level college wrestlers who won't take it to the ground, and can freely decide whether it goes to the ground or not depending on the G&P defense of the fighter.. That means the best striker wins the fight, and that means that striking is more relevant than bjj


Dude, you must go to the ground in collegiate wrestling. 
You have no clue what you are talking about.


----------



## Acronym

dvcochran said:


> Dude, you must go to the ground in collegiate wrestling.
> You have no clue what you are talking about.



They don't want to go to the ground with a Jiujitsu expert and can stall that easily..making all that groundwork the BJJ worked on irrelevant.


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> They don't want to go to the ground with a Jiujitsu expert and can stall that easily..making all that groundwork the BJJ worked on irrelevant.



Except they can't. The BJJ guy will just pull guard as soon as a wrestler shows up. Pulling Guard is the bane of any Judoka or Wrestler going up against a BJJ practitioner. We all do it against those guys because there's no point in trying to beat them at takedowns. Instead, you pull Guard--> Sweep ---> Submit.


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> Except they can't. The BJJ guy will just pull guard as soon as a wrestler shows up. Pulling Guard is the bane of any Judoka or Wrestler going up against a BJJ practitioner. We all do it against those guys because there's no point in trying to beat them at takedowns. Instead, you pull Guard--> Sweep ---> Submit.



Sigh...Is that why Gordon Ryan didn't even attempt to take Josh Barnett down? ￼￼￼Instead he turned over his a*ss and just played around. They are butt scooping wrestling noobs.


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> Sigh...Is that why Gordon Ryan didn't even attempt to take Josh Barnett down? ￼￼￼Instead he turned over his a*ss and just played around. They are butt scooping wrestling noobs.



If Gordon Ryan is a "noob" how did he end up getting Josh Barnett in a Triangle?


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> If Gordon Ryan is a "noob" how did he end up getting Josh Barnett in a Triangle?



Josh barnett took him down right before the end, which according to the posters I asked was in the rules stipulation. It looked very fishy why he did that right before it was over but they claim he had to


----------



## Hanzou

Uh what? Ryan was on top of Barnett before he subbed him. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/bjj/comments/9ltq1u/barnett_vs_gordon_ryan/


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> Uh what? Ryan was on top of Barnett before he subbed him.
> 
> Barnett vs Gordon Ryan. : bjj



What does who's on top that have to do with it? I Have seen the full match. Barnett either stepped into his guard or took him down and in that position got swept. He was never taken down from a standing position.


----------



## Acronym

They've edited out the earlier parts of the match on youtube. I guess they were so embarassed by Ryans non existent stand-up.


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> What does who's on top that have to do with it?



....................

It means that Barnett was in an *inferior position*, which opened him up to get submitted.


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> ....................
> 
> It means that Barnett was in an *inferior position*, which opened him up to get submitted.



He got himself into that by commiting. Gordon Ryan could not do a thing before that and the match was only seconds from being over.


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> He got himself into that by commiting. Gordon Ryan could not do a thing before that and the match was only seconds from being over.



You mean Gordon Ryan couldn't do a thing for the minutes he had Josh Barnett under his mount in a dominant position? In fact, Ryan was so helpless that he ended up choking Barnett as he attempted to escape the mount.


----------



## Acronym

Hanzou said:


> You mean Gordon Ryan couldn't do a thing for the minutes he had Josh Barnett under his mount in a dominant position? In fact, Ryan was so helpless that he ended up choking Barnett as he attempted to escape the mount.



No... He stepped into Ryans guard 30 seconds before the time was up.


----------



## Hanzou

Acronym said:


> No... He stepped into Ryans guard 30 seconds before the time was up.



Stepping into someone’s Guard doesn’t put you in the bottom of mount.


----------



## Rusty B

I'm not gonna read through all of this, but to answer to the OP - CMA's are definitely superior.

It's like this: if you were merely taught how to play chess; i.e., how the board is initially set up, how each piece moves, what constitutes a checkmate, etc... you know merely know "how" to play.

If that's all you've ever done... how likely is it that you're going to be able to beat a guy that has experience actually playing the game?

Answer: not very.


----------



## Steve

Rusty B said:


> I'm not gonna read through all of this, but to answer to the OP - CMA's are definitely superior.
> 
> It's like this: if you were merely taught how to play chess; i.e., how the board is initially set up, how each piece moves, what constitutes a checkmate, etc... you know merely know "how" to play.
> 
> If that's all you've ever done... how likely is it that you're going to be able to beat a guy that has experience actually playing the game?
> 
> Answer: not very.


As the great Yogi Berra said, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Stepping into someone’s Guard doesn’t put you in the bottom of mount.


Yeah?  Well, Naomichi Marufuji, executed the Shiranui Kai which is proof that Japanese professional wrestling is better than both BJJ and Catch Wrestling.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Yeah?  Well, Naomichi Marufuji, executed the Shiranui Kai which is proof that Japanese professional wrestling is better than both BJJ and Catch Wrestling.



You didn't go for Sakuraba?


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> You didn't go for Sakuraba?


I was trying to find the most obscure and meaningless reference I could.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

It's interesting watching hanzou being trolled.


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> It's interesting watching hanzou being trolled.


Happens to us all from time to time.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> Happens to us all from time to time.


Yup, definitely. I got trolled by the exact same individual for a while when he first joined. I just find it funny watching it happen to others.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

jobo said:


> easily break a base ball bat with their kick,???  now that id like to see


It’s a trick, they never break the fat end. I have also seen it done. Just like breaking the bricks, most can only do it if there is a spacer between each brick.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> Happens to us all from time to time.


Boy oh boy isn’t that the truth!


----------



## Steve

Steve said:


> I think any art that is calibrated based on actual performance is going to be better.  For most of us, who don't work in a niche field where we get to be professionally violent, competition is the only context for application available.
> 
> We have had debates/arguments/discussions ad nauseum about the subtle differences between competing and not competing make on the overall learning and performance of the people who train in a style.  You raise many good points, and I agree completely.
> 
> But the proof is in how reliably people can apply their skills within and outside of the context for which they train.  I believe if you took 400 people in a study where their practical skills are evaluated at regular, the results would speak for themselves, and it wouldn't even be close.  To be clear, I'm talking about evaluating relative performance within the specific trained context of the art, and also tested outside of the context of the art.  Performance and application will always bear more consistent, reliable results than a perpetual training cycle.
> 
> 400 people, all about the same age, all with average fitness levels and health, train x4 days per week for 2 hours each day:
> 
> Group 1:  100 trained 100 in any competitive style (e.g., muay thai, boxing, bjj, sambo, judo)
> Group 2:  100 in any non-competitive style (ninjutsu, aikido, krav maga)
> Group 3:  100 who trained in a performance based fitness program (crossfit, parkour, etc), and
> Group 4:  100 who don't train as a control group.
> I think after a year, I think Groups 1 and 3 would be most capable of defending themselves in a fight and would perform pretty similarly.  Group 2 would, I believe, be functionally the same as Group 4.
> 
> After 3 years, I think Group 1 pulls clearly ahead of Group 3.  Groups 2 and 4 would still be indistinguishable.
> 
> After 5 years, the lines keep going.  Group 1 at this point would begin to display actual expertise in the area.  Group 3 would be very fit, but would have plateaued.  The only question at 5 years that I would be interested in is whether Group 2 performs better than Group 4.  That's a real question.
> 
> And, you know what?  I think we all know that this is true.  I mean, does anyone question that this is how it would go?


So, who is going to fund my study?


----------



## ThatOneCanadian

In some ways, yes. Competition gives an incentive to perform better.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Steve said:


> So, who is going to fund my study?


There's not enough Dogecoin in the world.

I do think group 3 would end up full of horribly mangled people and thus be unable to walk let alone defend themselves. 

CrossFit is lethal.  Parkour is a Widowmaker.

I'll take competition Kung Fu any day.


----------



## Steve

Oily Dragon said:


> There's not enough Dogecoin in the world.
> 
> I do think group 3 would end up full of horribly mangled people and thus be unable to walk let alone defend themselves.
> 
> CrossFit is lethal.  Parkour is a Widowmaker.
> 
> I'll take competition Kung Fu any day.


Ha.  Maybe in lieu of Crossfit or Parkour, we should focus on Tae Bo or Cardio Kickboxing.  

If by competition kung fu you have something like san shou in mind, I think that's squarely in group 1.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Steve said:


> Ha.  Maybe in lieu of Crossfit or Parkour, we should focus on Tae Bo or Cardio Kickboxing.
> 
> If by competition kung fu you have something like san shou in mind, I think that's squarely in group 1.


Yes, but we should throw Wing Chun students into group 3, they might actually learn to crosstrain.

That shouldn't be taken as a jab at Wing Chun by the way.  More like a loving suggestion.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> So, who is going to fund my study?


I got 5 on it.


----------



## Steve

Oily Dragon said:


> Yes, but we should throw Wing Chun students into group 3, they might actually learn to crosstrain.
> 
> That shouldn't be taken as a jab at Wing Chun by the way.  More like a loving suggestion.


See, if I made that joke, I'd get in trouble.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> See, if I made that joke, I'd get in trouble.


They haven’t read it yet, by tomorrow they will have mob after you.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> See, if I made that joke, I'd get in trouble.


Bar the castle door!


----------



## Oily Dragon

Steve said:


> See, if I made that joke, I'd get in trouble.


I understand.

Laughter is the best medicine everywhere except martial arts forums.

There, it is beaten beyond death, every day.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Oily Dragon said:


> I understand.
> 
> Laughter is the best medicine everywhere except martial arts forums.
> 
> There, it is beaten beyond death, every day.


It gets pretty serious in here pretty fast. I wonder if we were all in a room together if we would be more polite and friendly?


----------



## Steve

Wing Woo Gar said:


> It gets pretty serious in here pretty fast. I wonder if we were all in a room together if we would be more polite and friendly?


I'd say it's 50/50 whether it would be more polite, or a lot more violent.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Wing Woo Gar said:


> It gets pretty serious in here pretty fast. I wonder if we were all in a room together if we would be more polite and friendly


I think MT is kind of tame.  

You should see Twitter.  Everyone there is a psycho clown, medical expert, or has a unnerving fascination with Frank Castle.

Or Facebook.  Sorry, Meta.  Which is already getting poked as "Beta".

None of that here on MT.  Nothing but honest folks.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Steve said:


> I'd say it's 50/50 whether it would be more polite, or a lot more violent.


Is it too much to hope for both?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> I'd say it's 50/50 whether it would be more polite, or a lot more violent.


Fair enough. At least a couple fights when the beer runs out.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Oily Dragon said:


> Is it too much to hope for both?


Do I have to answer that? I would shed a tear.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Oily Dragon said:


> I think MT is kind of tame.
> 
> You should see Twitter.  Everyone there is a psycho clown, medical expert, or has a unnerving fascination with Frank Castle.
> 
> Or Facebook.  Sorry, Meta.  Which is already getting poked as "Beta".
> 
> None of that here on MT.  Nothing but honest folks.


To be honest I never went on any forum other than this. I don’t have any other social media whatsoever, and I just got this last month.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Oily Dragon said:


> I think MT is kind of tame.
> 
> You should see Twitter.  Everyone there is a psycho clown, medical expert, or has a unnerving fascination with Frank Castle.
> 
> Or Facebook.  Sorry, Meta.  Which is already getting poked as "Beta".
> 
> None of that here on MT.  Nothing but honest folks.


I think it’s funny that people use movies as a reference point in here.  The other day it was cobra Kai they were using. I can’t take it seriously.


----------



## drop bear

Wing Woo Gar said:


> It gets pretty serious in here pretty fast. I wonder if we were all in a room together if we would be more polite and friendly?



Not me.


----------



## dvcochran

Wing Woo Gar said:


> It gets pretty serious in here pretty fast. I wonder if we were all in a room together if we would be more polite and friendly?


For a few minutes anyway.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> Not me.


I will save the whiskey for you then.


----------



## Ivan

Hanzou said:


> This was a question asked in my other thread and I thought it warranted its own thread. There is a slight disdain for sports and competition among traditionalists within the martial arts. It even pops up in my style Brazilian Jiujitsu, despite the fact that what brought Bjj to prominence was sport and competition. There is a group of people within Bjj who dislike what competition has done to the art, and like to hammer in the idea that sport dilutes the self defense aspect of the art.
> 
> While there is some merit to that point, there is another inescapable fact; Competition and sport (particularly MMA) have kept Bjj "honest" in that it forces the style to never drift too far into having its own head up its ****. For example, after Bjj exploded on the scene via the early UFCs, numerous other grappling systems emerged to try to supplant it as the main grappling art of the emerging sport. At first, Bjj exponents (mainly the Gracies) pushed a sort of purity message and refused to embrace other grappling styles, saying that their system of grappling was superior to all others. However, after the Gracies got beat by grapplers who had cross-trained in Bjj, other Bjj schools embraced other grappling forms. Over two decades later, it would be hard to argue that Bjj isn't an overall better martial art than it was when it first exploded on the scene in the 1990s.
> 
> Beyond general MA improvement, it would be a bit silly to believe that your average MA hobbyist is a better martial artist than a professional fighter. Again, when I look into my own martial art, I look at guys like Ryan Gordon, Keenan Cornelius, JT Torres, Marcelo Garcia, Ryan Hall, etc. and recognize that they would absolutely destroy me. There are videos of competitive Bjj players who roll against entire schools and submit students in that school within a matter of minutes if not seconds. Even the black belt instructors are easily dealt with, and considering that I would struggle with the average Bjj black belt, the fact that these people are several magnitudes better than them is something to think about.
> 
> Which brings us back to the general question; Are competitive sport martial artists superior to non competitive martial artists? I simply can't see how they aren't. Beyond grappling, look at the various showcases of traditional Chinese martial artists going up against MMA and sport fighters. Universally, the traditional martial artists lose, and many of the people they lose to aren't even professional fighters. Pushing this up a notch, if Jon Jones or Khabib walked into your dojo, could your instructor beat them in a fight? Bringing this down a notch would your traditional karate instructor be able to stand toe to toe against an amateur boxer? These are questions to consider because we continue to run across people who say that since their style includes wrist locks, throws, kicks, and kata, they have an advantage over a boxer because "the boxer only has punches".
> 
> I would argue that the boxer has more than punches. They have conditioning, durability, endurance, and fighting experience.
> 
> Anyway, I'm interested in your thoughts.


Superior in what way? I think this is an excellent question. One of my favourite topics to think about is, what makes a martial artist and what makes a fighter? Is there a difference between the two, and if so what is it? Can one be a martial artist and a fighter simultaneously?

When it comes to traditional martial arts, this term is used loosely. What constitutes as traditional varies from style to style, and person to person. In my eyes, traditional martial arts training involves hardcore conditioning, such as bone conditioning and hardcore stretching. Wouldn't that make the physical fitness of the TMA practitioners, by these standards, superior for fighting? Furthermore, the end goal of TMA practitioners and athletes in combat sports is different. Athletes competing in fights, whether it be professional MMA or Amateur Boxing, in reality, are just athletes. Their goal is to win, whether by points or by knockout, not to kill or injure. The athletes are just athletes, and of these few athletes, only a few of them would classify as real fighters.

These boxing bouts and MMA matches are just rehearsals for the reality of the dangers in the world; where there are no rules or referees. TMA practitioners, again by my standards, take this into account. They understand that there is a difference between a fight and sparring. By all these standards, TMA practitioners seem superior, don't they?

But the quality of TMA has dropped. It's maddening to see. We have these so-called martial artists and fighters with insane superiority complexes, bullying anyone who dares to touch weight training. For some reason, physical strength is despised and made fun of in the martial arts community nowadays, even though it should go hand in hand. They don't practice sparring and preach inner peace, even though they don't have the strength for battle.

The reason combat sports athletes are kicking *** right now is that TMAs have dropped. They are an embarrassment to their history, and I have seen very few schools that teach what needs to be taught. Martial arts were created so that the weak could become strong and defend themselves; now weakness is encouraged with participation trophies, "no contact sparring" and other crap. However, there is no doubt in mind, that real TMA practitioners, the ones that came before us and our ancestors over a century ago would floor almost any modern athlete except for the fact that MMA is a thing now that makes the athlete "fighters" of this generation more flexible than any other fighters in history.


----------



## Hanzou

Ivan said:


> Superior in what way? I think this is an excellent question. One of my favourite topics to think about is, what makes a martial artist and what makes a fighter? Is there a difference between the two, and if so what is it? Can one be a martial artist and a fighter simultaneously?
> 
> When it comes to traditional martial arts, this term is used loosely. What constitutes as traditional varies from style to style, and person to person. In my eyes, traditional martial arts training involves hardcore conditioning, such as bone conditioning and hardcore stretching. Wouldn't that make the physical fitness of the TMA practitioners, by these standards, superior for fighting? Furthermore, the end goal of TMA practitioners and athletes in combat sports is different. Athletes competing in fights, whether it be professional MMA or Amateur Boxing, in reality, are just athletes. Their goal is to win, whether by points or by knockout, not to kill or injure. The athletes are just athletes, and of these few athletes, only a few of them would classify as real fighters.
> 
> These boxing bouts and MMA matches are just rehearsals for the reality of the dangers in the world; where there are no rules or referees. TMA practitioners, again by my standards, take this into account. They understand that there is a difference between a fight and sparring. By all these standards, TMA practitioners seem superior, don't they?
> 
> But the quality of TMA has dropped. It's maddening to see. We have these so-called martial artists and fighters with insane superiority complexes, bullying anyone who dares to touch weight training. For some reason, physical strength is despised and made fun of in the martial arts community nowadays, even though it should go hand in hand. They don't practice sparring and preach inner peace, even though they don't have the strength for battle.
> 
> The reason combat sports athletes are kicking *** right now is that TMAs have dropped. They are an embarrassment to their history, and I have seen very few schools that teach what needs to be taught. Martial arts were created so that the weak could become strong and defend themselves; now weakness is encouraged with participation trophies, "no contact sparring" and other crap. However, there is no doubt in mind, that real TMA practitioners, the ones that came before us and our ancestors over a century ago would floor almost any modern athlete except for the fact that MMA is a thing now that makes the athlete "fighters" of this generation more flexible than any other fighters in history.



That really depends on what time period you're talking about where TMAs supposedly dropped in quality. I'm of the opinion that most TMA stories are pure BS and folktales. Mainly because the basis of their stories don't mesh with reality. The Kung Fu masters of Shaolin didn't do much to dislodge the Manchus from China. The Okinawan Te masters didn't do jack against the Samurai of the Satsuma clan. The guy that Jet Li's Fearless is based on never fought anyone, and more than likely died of food poisoning.

So when someone comes along and says that TMAs used to be amazing, I just nod in agreement and try not to roll my eyes.

For example, here's a couple of Kung Fu masters from the 1950s;






This was about 70 years ago, and the technique looks like garbage. I'd put some BJJ white belts in there with about 6 weeks training and they'd put both of those guys in the hospital. Yet those are Kung Fu "masters"?

Here's some footage of those famous "rooftop fights" in Hong Kong;






Again, nothing really all that impressive.

The truth of the matter is that when western Boxers and Wrestlers entered China and Japan to challenge the martial arts masters there, they wiped the floor with them, and this was back in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I mean, compare those fights above to someone like Jack Johnson, Sugar Ray Robinson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, etc. It wouldn't even be a contest.

You know how Kano reinvigorated Japanese Jujitsu? He combined it with western wrestling. He took that knowledge and used it to best traditional Jujitsu and replace it with a more modern system.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Do I have to answer that? I would shed a tear.


Knowledge is a treasure.  

Practice is the key.

I didn't say that.


----------



## Ivan

Hanzou said:


> That really depends on what time period you're talking about where TMAs supposedly dropped in quality. I'm of the opinion that most TMA stories are pure BS and folktales. Mainly because the basis of their stories don't mesh with reality. The Kung Fu masters of Shaolin didn't do much to dislodge the Manchus from China. The Okinawan Te masters didn't do jack against the Samurai of the Satsuma clan. The guy that Jet Li's Fearless is based on never fought anyone, and more than likely died of food poisoning.
> 
> So when someone comes along and says that TMAs used to be amazing, I just nod in agreement and try not to roll my eyes.
> 
> For example, here's a couple of Kung Fu masters from the 1950s;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was about 70 years ago, and the technique looks like garbage. I'd put some BJJ white belts in there with about 6 weeks training and they'd put both of those guys in the hospital. Yet those are Kung Fu "masters"?
> 
> Here's some footage of those famous "rooftop fights" in Hong Kong;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, nothing really all that impressive.
> 
> The truth of the matter is that when western Boxers and Wrestlers entered China and Japan to challenge the martial arts masters there, they wiped the floor with them, and this was back in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I mean, compare those fights above to someone like Jack Johnson, Sugar Ray Robinson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, etc. It wouldn't even be a contest.
> 
> You know how Kano reinvigorated Japanese Jujitsu? He combined it with western wrestling. He took that knowledge and used it to best traditional Jujitsu and replace it with a more modern system.


That's true. But Samurai were TMA practitioners themselves were they now? They kicked ***. As for Kung Fu, I'm not all that knowledgeable or experienced. When it comes to TMA I mainly refer to Japanese MA e.g. Jujitsu, Karate, where the conditioning was insane and Karate masters wuld pressure test their techniques by picking fights with Yakuza in the streets.


----------



## Hanzou

Ivan said:


> That's true. But Samurai were TMA practitioners themselves were they now? They kicked ***. As for Kung Fu, I'm not all that knowledgeable or experienced. When it comes to TMA I mainly refer to Japanese MA e.g. Jujitsu, Karate, where the conditioning was insane and Karate masters wuld pressure test their techniques by picking fights with Yakuza in the streets.



Eh, they “kicked ***” because they had superior weaponry. When the Japanese military acquired modern weaponry, the samurai were obliterated by an army of lightly trained conscripts during the Meiji period.

The point is that we have an inordinate amount of faith towards Asian martial arts when we really shouldn’t. Western martial arts turned into sports, or Asian/Western hybrids turned into sports have performed far better over time.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> The Kung Fu masters of Shaolin didn't do much to dislodge the Manchus from China. The Okinawan Te masters didn't do jack against the Samurai of the Satsuma clan.





Ivan said:


> hat's true. But Samurai were TMA practitioners themselves were they now?





Hanzou said:


> Eh, they “kicked ***” because they had superior weaponry. When the Japanese military acquired modern weaponry, the samurai were obliterated by an army of lightly trained conscripts during the Meiji period.


Eh, wars are won and lost based on factors such as troop numbers, technology/equipment quality, campaign strategy, battlefield tactics, logistics, supply chains, morale, discipline, finances, etc. Individual fighting styles are way, way, way down on the bottom of the list. (Especially since units fighting in formation have to use techniques and tactics which differ significantly from individuals fighting one on one.) You can't judge much of anything regarding the quality of traditional fighting systems based on how one country fared against another in wartime at a given point in history.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Let's say that, all other factors being equal, a practitioner of _this_ martial art will defeat a practitioner of_ that_ martial art, and that's how we're determining which is "superior."

And in that case, I'm going to say that competitive sports martial arts are superior.

A TMA'ist is trained _how to_ fight.  A combat athlete is trained _to_ fight.


----------



## Ivan

Hanzou said:


> Eh, they “kicked ***” because they had superior weaponry. When the Japanese military acquired modern weaponry, the samurai were obliterated by an army of lightly trained conscripts during the Meiji period.
> 
> The point is that we have an inordinate amount of faith towards Asian martial arts when we really shouldn’t. Western martial arts turned into sports, or Asian/Western hybrids turned into sports have performed far better over time.


I don't think it's fair to ratonalise your point just because of superior weaponry. You are attributing an entire army's rise and fall due to the weapons they used, which is fair enough. But I am certain that the average samurai would beat many of history's warriors in a 1v1 fight with no equipment or weaponry (hand to hand).


----------



## isshinryuronin

Hanzou said:


> the technique looks like garbage


Reminds me of  junior high school fights behind the gym.  Slop.  Quite amazing.  Hard to believe these guys were genuine experts.


Hanzou said:


> The Okinawan Te masters didn't do jack against the Samurai of the Satsuma clan.


You're being unfair, here, by comparing the power of a few guys against a small army!  There are several stories of individual Okinawan te experts standing up to the Satsuma clan (physically and against the political power behind them) to protect against the Satsuma mistreatment of the townspeople, sometimes at the risk of their own lives.

THIS is what the old karate and _bu_ code taught - Stand up for what is right, protect the common people and promote a peaceful society.  Karate then, and now, was about more than just fighting.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Ivan said:


> But I am certain that the average samurai would beat many of history's warriors in a 1v1 fight with no equipment or weaponry (hand to hand).


For example, who?  With training in both boxing and pankration and a six-inch height advantage, I would put my money on a Roman legionnaire over a samurai; and I could probably say the same for ancient Persian warriors, such as the Immortals.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ivan said:


> I don't think it's fair to ratonalise your point just because of superior weaponry. You are attributing an entire army's rise and fall due to the weapons they used, which is fair enough. But I am certain that the average samurai would beat many of history's warriors in a 1v1 fight with no equipment or weaponry (hand to hand).


Why are you sure of that. What do you base it on?


----------



## Urban Trekker

Hanzou said:


> Eh, they “kicked ***” because they had superior weaponry. When the Japanese military acquired modern weaponry, the samurai were obliterated by an army of lightly trained conscripts during the Meiji period.
> 
> The point is that we have an inordinate amount of faith towards Asian martial arts when we really shouldn’t. Western martial arts turned into sports, or Asian/Western hybrids turned into sports have performed far better over time.


Another thing that was happening around the same time was the Anglo-Zulu war.  Shaka had a policy against guns, and considered them to be tools of cowards.  The Zulu did get their hands on guns, but they were obsolete muzzle-loaded muskets; which meant that in the face of modern firearms, the Zulu were better off with their traditional weapons.

In any case, the British Army was arguably the world's most powerful army at the time - and it took six months for them to put the Zulu down.

I agree that people put too much faith in Asian martial arts over western.


----------



## Cynik75

Ivan said:


> ..... But I am certain that the average samurai would beat many of history's warriors in a 1v1 fight with no equipment or weaponry (hand to hand).


And probably would be beaten by many too. I do not see small tiny Japanese naked warrior against naked senegalese traditional wrestlers...


----------



## dvcochran

Urban Trekker said:


> Let's say that, all other factors being equal, a practitioner of _this_ martial art will defeat a practitioner of_ that_ martial art, and that's how we're determining which is "superior."
> 
> And in that case, I'm going to say that competitive sports martial arts are superior.
> 
> A TMA'ist is trained _how to_ fight.  A combat athlete is trained _to_ fight.


So what is the definition of a 'combat athlete'?


----------



## Urban Trekker

dvcochran said:


> So what is the definition of a 'combat athlete'?


Someone who competes in combat sports.  It's a lot shorter and more efficient to say than "combat sports player" or the like.


----------



## dvcochran

Ivan said:


> I don't think it's fair to ratonalise your point just because of superior weaponry. You are attributing an entire army's rise and fall due to the weapons they used, which is fair enough. But I am certain that the average samurai would beat many of history's warriors in a 1v1 fight with no equipment or weaponry (hand to hand).


Read again:
"Eh, wars are won and lost based on factors such as troop numbers, technology/equipment quality, campaign strategy, battlefield tactics, logistics, supply chains, morale, discipline, finances, etc. Individual fighting styles are way, way, way down on the bottom of the list. (Especially since units fighting in formation have to use techniques and tactics which differ significantly from individuals fighting one on one.)"

You are arguing his point from a completely different position. At best you would win by the law of averages but never overall.


----------



## caped crusader

Urban Trekker said:


> Another thing that was happening around the same time was the Anglo-Zulu war.  Shaka had a policy against guns, and considered them to be tools of cowards.  The Zulu did get their hands on guns, but they were obsolete muzzle-loaded muskets; which meant that in the face of modern firearms, the Zulu were better off with their traditional weapons.
> 
> In any case, the British Army was arguably the world's most powerful army at the time - and it took six months for them to put the Zulu down.
> 
> I agree that people put too much faith in Asian martial arts over western.


Zulu lad..Zulu !


----------



## caped crusader

Getting back on topic i think sport karate is OK for some sparring and fitness but for real self defence "our" sport training is nothing to a traditional Dojo teaching say real Goju Ryu body and mind hardness. 
Just my 2 cents bros !


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> That really depends on what time period you're talking about where TMAs supposedly dropped in quality. I'm of the opinion that most TMA stories are pure BS and folktales. Mainly because the basis of their stories don't mesh with reality. The Kung Fu masters of Shaolin didn't do much to dislodge the Manchus from China. The Okinawan Te masters didn't do jack against the Samurai of the Satsuma clan. The guy that Jet Li's Fearless is based on never fought anyone, and more than likely died of food poisoning.
> 
> So when someone comes along and says that TMAs used to be amazing, I just nod in agreement and try not to roll my eyes.
> 
> For example, here's a couple of Kung Fu masters from the 1950s;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was about 70 years ago, and the technique looks like garbage. I'd put some BJJ white belts in there with about 6 weeks training and they'd put both of those guys in the hospital. Yet those are Kung Fu "masters"?
> 
> Here's some footage of those famous "rooftop fights" in Hong Kong;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, nothing really all that impressive.
> 
> The truth of the matter is that when western Boxers and Wrestlers entered China and Japan to challenge the martial arts masters there, they wiped the floor with them, and this was back in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I mean, compare those fights above to someone like Jack Johnson, Sugar Ray Robinson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, etc. It wouldn't even be a contest.
> 
> You know how Kano reinvigorated Japanese Jujitsu? He combined it with western wrestling. He took that knowledge and used it to best traditional Jujitsu and replace it with a more modern system.


TMA make sense in their historical context. The skills that you deride allowed those people to be regarded as the best in the context they were in. If they had fought Leonard or Dempsey, they may have gotten beat, or they may have kicked or grappled them, or they may have adapted their own training to deal with boxers.

Put people in armour and striking becomes an inferior strategy. Royce won the first UFC doing stuff that would have gotten him killed on a medieval battlefield. And even today, martial arts are more useful in countries with strict gun control laws than, say, the US.

It's fair to have a critical eye and say "this wouldn't work in the UFC because X". But I find that style comparisons often hit a limit where things are compared outside of their respective contexts. We end up with discussions that are as pointless as saying  "are cars superior to screwdrivers?". And often, the real subtext is "my style/dad can beat your style/dad therefore I am better". That's playground-level discussion.

People refine their methods based on their goals and context. You know how William E. Fairbairn reinvigorated Western combatives? By incorporating Japanese Jujutsu...


----------



## hoshin1600

What I find most annoying within this thread is people's insistence that the value of an art is in direct relationship to its ability to produce superior fighters.  That is strictly a modern interpretation and value.
Aikido's O sensei would be outraged at the modern validation of fighting skill. He blatantly said his style is not about fighting. Traditional karate masters rebuked students who were at their dojo to learn to fight.
There is a rational argument that martial arts *IS* about fighting ,  yes and no. Traditional martial arts often use fighting as a vehicle for other purposes and not as the end in and of itself.   Karate is designed to be practiced throughout one's lifetime. Thus in your younger years , yes sure you can focus on fighting but as you age fighting becomes less important. 10th Dan of uechi Ryu George Mattson is in his 80's to what use is karate to him if it is only about fighting? And yet he trains every day. O Sensei trained right up to a few days before he passed away. Was self defense really why he practiced? No. Fighting is a preoccupation for the young and insecure. It is a focus of training for those still young enough to care. But eventually age will catch up to you and you realize fighting is for the young and those days are behind you. And yet some still love to train. If you trained properly you can still move and do so without the replaced hips and joints, without the wires holding your spine together or whatever other injuries top level competition puts on us. Non sport training becomes a necessity. All those arts the young made fun of because it didn't work in the octagon start to have value because fighting wasn't the point to begin with.


----------



## Hanzou

Tony Dismukes said:


> Eh, wars are won and lost based on factors such as troop numbers, technology/equipment quality, campaign strategy, battlefield tactics, logistics, supply chains, morale, discipline, finances, etc. Individual fighting styles are way, way, way down on the bottom of the list. (Especially since units fighting in formation have to use techniques and tactics which differ significantly from individuals fighting one on one.) You can't judge much of anything regarding the quality of traditional fighting systems based on how one country fared against another in wartime at a given point in history.


Meh, I was just pointing out that the only reason samurai were "badasses" against the Okinawans was because they had superior weaponry. The samurai in turn became obsolete when better weapons were developed within Japan.

My point is that we put WAY too much stock in Asian martial arts systems. People think samurai were some magical beings who could defeat anyone in swordsmanship. In reality, they were simply guys with swords, and you can find guys with swords pretty much everywhere. However, for some reason, we in the west mystify Asian guys with swords. It's downright silly.


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> TMA make sense in their historical context. The skills that you deride allowed those people to be regarded as the best in the context they were in. If they had fought Leonard or Dempsey, they may have gotten beat, or they may have kicked or grappled them, or they may have adapted their own training to deal with boxers.



Except we have data of what happened when those Karate and Kung fu experts met boxers and wrestlers.

It didn't go well for the former. 

Boxing and wrestling has obviously improved since those old bouts. Someone earlier in this thread stated that TMAs have been "watered down" in the same period of time.


O'Malley said:


> Put people in armour and striking becomes an inferior strategy. Royce won the first UFC doing stuff that would have gotten him killed on a medieval battlefield. And even today, martial arts are more useful in countries with strict gun control laws than, say, the US
> 
> It's fair to have a critical eye and say "this wouldn't work in the UFC because X". But I find that style comparisons often hit a limit where things are compared outside of their respective contexts. We end up with discussions that are as pointless as saying  "are cars superior to screwdrivers?". And often, the real subtext is "my style/dad can beat your style/dad therefore I am better". That's playground-level discussion.
> 
> People refine their methods based on their goals and context. You know how William E. Fairbairn reinvigorated Western combatives? By incorporating Japanese Jujutsu...



Well why wouldn't it be fair to compare GJJ to Wing Chun for example? Both are modern martial arts designed for general self defense and self improvement. I wouldn't consider that a comparison of a car and a screw driver. Instead, I would say that you're looking at two types of cars and their overall performance.

And yeah, Royce's style probably wouldn't have done very good against a samurai, but it worked really good when a huge wrestler pinned him to the mat and tried to bash his head in. Interestingly, those same techniques worked really good for me when a huge guy tried to bash my head in too.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Hanzou said:


> People think samurai were some magical beings who could defeat anyone in swordsmanship. In reality, they were simply guys with swords,


No, Samurai were not magical, but they did devote their life, both to the sword, and to developing the unique mindset/spirit of life/death from childhood.  In this respect they were similar to the ancient Spartans, though were much more cultured.  (The Spartans had little interest in art, poetry, or philosophy.)  The Samurai were considerably more than "simple guys with swords."


Hanzou said:


> only reason samurai were "badasses" against the Okinawans was because they had superior weaponry.


The Satsuma army, like all other Japanese armies, were composed mostly of common foot soldiers armed with spears.  The Samurai class were a small portion of the force.  The Okinawans had their own "samurai," but being such a tiny nation they fielded a much smaller army and fell very quickly to their more numerous invaders.  It was not so much a matter of weaponry than of numbers.

As for being "badasses" due to their weapons, the Samurai were badasses even without their swords.  Being badass is not dependent on what one holds in his hand, it's what he holds in his heart and spirit.


----------



## Hanzou

isshinryuronin said:


> Reminds me of  junior high school fights behind the gym.  Slop.  Quite amazing.  Hard to believe these guys were genuine experts.
> 
> You're being unfair, here, by comparing the power of a few guys against a small army!  There are several stories of individual Okinawan te experts standing up to the Satsuma clan (physically and against the political power behind them) to protect against the Satsuma mistreatment of the townspeople, sometimes at the risk of their own lives.
> 
> THIS is what the old karate and _bu_ code taught - Stand up for what is right, protect the common people and promote a peaceful society.  Karate then, and now, was about more than just fighting.



I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with are tall tales where Okinawan masters armed with farm equipment jump kicked samurai off of horses, when the descendants of those masters couldn't even beat a boxer or a wrestler centuries later.


----------



## Hanzou

isshinryuronin said:


> No, Samurai were not magical, but they did devote their life, both to the sword, and to developing the unique mindset/spirit of life/death from childhood.  In this respect they were similar to the ancient Spartans, though were much more cultured.  (The Spartans had little interest in art, poetry, or philosophy.)  The Samurai were considerably more than "simple guys with swords.



More like medieval knights honestly, potentially along the same lines as the fanatical Christian knights who formed orders like the Templars. However, medieval knights don't have the Asian mystique, so they're simply not viewed as cultured or cool.


isshinryuronin said:


> The Satsuma army, like all other Japanese armies, were composed mostly of common foot soldiers armed with spears.  The Samurai class were a small portion of the force.  The Okinawans had their own "samurai," but being such a tiny nation they fielded a much smaller army and fell very quickly to their more numerous invaders.  It was not so much a matter of weaponry than of numbers.
> 
> As for being "badasses" due to their weapons, the Samurai were badasses even without their swords.  Being badass is not dependent on what one holds in his hand, it's what he holds in his heart and spirit.



Again, no different than any other decently trained medieval fighting force. As with all decently trained medieval fighting forces, they were eventually pushed into the dustbin of history by modern weapons.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Hanzou said:


> The Kung Fu masters of Shaolin didn't do much to dislodge the Manchus from China.


Shaolin has no kung fu masters. 

They are Chan masters.  Big difference.

This is a kung fu master.


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> TMA make sense in their historical context. The skills that you deride allowed those people to be regarded as the best in the context they were in. If they had fought Leonard or Dempsey, they may have gotten beat, or they may have kicked or grappled them, or they may have adapted their own training to deal with boxers.
> 
> Put people in armour and striking becomes an inferior strategy. Royce won the first UFC doing stuff that would have gotten him killed on a medieval battlefield. And even today, martial arts are more useful in countries with strict gun control laws than, say, the US.
> 
> It's fair to have a critical eye and say "this wouldn't work in the UFC because X". But I find that style comparisons often hit a limit where things are compared outside of their respective contexts. We end up with discussions that are as pointless as saying  "are cars superior to screwdrivers?". And often, the real subtext is "my style/dad can beat your style/dad therefore I am better". That's playground-level discussion.
> 
> People refine their methods based on their goals and context. You know how William E. Fairbairn reinvigorated Western combatives? By incorporating Japanese Jujutsu...



You are comparing a skill people do. To a skill people don't do. But think they understand. 

Basically you are describing sandra bullock from demolition man.


----------



## caped crusader

hoshin1600 said:


> not about fighting.


This is very true.


----------



## _Simon_

hoshin1600 said:


> What I find most annoying within this thread is people's insistence that the value of an art is in direct relationship to its ability to produce superior fighters.  That is strictly a modern interpretation and value.
> Aikido's O sensei would be outraged at the modern validation of fighting skill. He blatantly said his style is not about fighting. Traditional karate masters rebuked students who were at their dojo to learn to fight.
> There is a rational argument that martial arts *IS* about fighting ,  yes and no. Traditional martial arts often use fighting as a vehicle for other purposes and not as the end in and of itself.   Karate is designed to be practiced throughout one's lifetime. Thus in your younger years , yes sure you can focus on fighting but as you age fighting becomes less important. 10th Dan of uechi Ryu George Mattson is in his 80's to what use is karate to him if it is only about fighting? And yet he trains every day. O Sensei trained right up to a few days before he passed away. Was self defense really why he practiced? No. Fighting is a preoccupation for the young and insecure. It is a focus of training for those still young enough to care. But eventually age will catch up to you and you realize fighting is for the young and those days are behind you. And yet some still love to train. If you trained properly you can still move and do so without the replaced hips and joints, without the wires holding your spine together or whatever other injuries top level competition puts on us. Non sport training becomes a necessity. All those arts the young made fun of because it didn't work in the octagon start to have value because fighting wasn't the point to begin with.


100%, well said


----------



## Hanzou

Oily Dragon said:


> Shaolin has no kung fu masters.
> 
> They are Chan masters.  Big difference.
> 
> This is a kung fu master.



You know what I was talking about. Let's not play semantics please.


----------



## Hanzou

hoshin1600 said:


> What I find most annoying within this thread is people's insistence that the value of an art is in direct relationship to its ability to produce superior fighters.  That is strictly a modern interpretation and value.
> Aikido's O sensei would be outraged at the modern validation of fighting skill. He blatantly said his style is not about fighting. Traditional karate masters rebuked students who were at their dojo to learn to fight.



What I find most annoying are people trying to pretend that one of the main reasons they're practicing Aikido isn't because of the stories of Ueshiba being a badass and supposedly throwing around big burly men with his index finger.

Want to know why O Sensei didn't like validations of fighting skill (i.e. competitions)? Because he would have been exposed.


----------



## caped crusader

Hanzou said:


> Want to know why O Sensei didn't like validations of fighting skill (i.e. competitions)? Because he would have been exposed.


He did not like it when Tomiki formed his own System with randori like judo. Got to agree though for outside fighting it's just not useful. Regardless how much "KI" O Sensei used...🙈


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> What I find most annoying are people trying to pretend that one of the main reasons they're practicing Aikido isn't because of the stories of Ueshiba being a badass and supposedly throwing around big burly men with his index finger.
> 
> Want to know why O Sensei didn't like validations of fighting skill (i.e. competitions)? Because he would have been exposed.


Yet his skill was validated by great competitors like Kenshiro Abbe, Tenryu, Kenji Tomiki and even Kano himself. But what do they know, right?


----------



## O'Malley

caped crusader said:


> He did not like it when Tomiki formed his own System with randori like judo. Got to agree though for outside fighting it's just not useful. Regardless how much "KI" O Sensei used...🙈


He let Tomiki do his stuff. He was against turning aikido into a sport, like Funakoshi and Kano initially...


----------



## caped crusader

O'Malley said:


> Yet his skill was validated by great competitors like Kenshiro Abbe, Tenryu, Kenji Tomiki and even Kano himself. But what do they know, right?


Oh come on...what he tought Especially later was a far..far cry from Daito Ryu. His students threw themselves around out of respect.  Why do you think Tomiki formed his System as he was a high Ranking Judoka too.


----------



## caped crusader

O'Malley said:


> He let Tomiki do his stuff. He was against turning aikido into a sport, like Funakoshi and Kano initially...


Well Tomiki was correct to go his own way. Just my opinion. 
Aiki ki aikido is for harmony and perhaps self development of ones self but not fighting.


----------



## O'Malley

caped crusader said:


> Oh come on...what he tought Especially later was a far..far cry from Daito Ryu. His students threw themselves around out of respect.  Why do you think Tomiki formed his System as he was a high Ranking Judoka too.


Morihei Ueshiba taught Daito Ryu until his death, that's well documented. The fact that his students may have tanked for him in his later years does not change that. The whole evolution of Tomiki aikido is a completely different discussion (for example, he wanted to incorporate competition, which is also absent from Daito Ryu).


----------



## caped crusader

O'Malley said:


> Morihei Ueshiba taught Daito Ryu until his death, that's well documented.


Where? When?


----------



## caped crusader

O'Malley said:


> The whole evolution of Tomiki aikido is a completely different discussion (for example, he wanted to incorporate competition, which is also absent from Daito Ryu).


The thread is about competition, useful or not. I think for Tomiki students it's good. AIKI KI ...is not for fighting.


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> Yet his skill was validated by great competitors like Kenshiro Abbe, Tenryu, Kenji Tomiki and even Kano himself. But what do they know, right?



I would hardly consider any of those sources to be objective.


----------



## caped crusader

Hanzou said:


> I would hardly consider any of those sources to be objective.


On the subject of competition..there is perhaps a reason why Aikido is not in any MMA or any combat sport regardless if Steven seagal says he trained people ...


----------



## O'Malley

caped crusader said:


> Where? When?











						Aikido Maki-no-Ichi - O-Sensei's First Book on Aikido
					

PDF format downloadable copy of "Aikido Maki-no-Ichi", the first book on Aikido ever published by Aikido Founder Morihei Ueshiba.




					www.google.com
				












						Ueshiba-ha Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu - Aikido Sangenkai Blog
					

Was Aikido the unique and original creation of Morihei Ueshiba? Or is there a greater debt owed to Sokaku Takeda and Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu?




					www.aikidosangenkai.org
				












						The Ueshiba Legacy, by Mark Murray - Aikido Sangenkai Blog
					

Part 1 of Mark Murray's essay on the two legacies of Aikido - that of Morihei Ueshiba and that of his son, Kisshomaru Ueshiba.




					www.aikidosangenkai.org
				





caped crusader said:


> The thread is about competition, useful or not. I think for Tomiki students it's good. AIKI KI ...is not for fighting.


FWIW I agree that competition is useful.


Hanzou said:


> I would hardly consider any of those sources to be objective.


Ignoring facts does not make them disappear.


----------



## caped crusader

O'Malley said:


> Aikido Maki-no-Ichi - O-Sensei's First Book on Aikido
> 
> 
> PDF format downloadable copy of "Aikido Maki-no-Ichi", the first book on Aikido ever published by Aikido Founder Morihei Ueshiba.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ueshiba-ha Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu - Aikido Sangenkai Blog
> 
> 
> Was Aikido the unique and original creation of Morihei Ueshiba? Or is there a greater debt owed to Sokaku Takeda and Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aikidosangenkai.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ueshiba Legacy, by Mark Murray - Aikido Sangenkai Blog
> 
> 
> Part 1 of Mark Murray's essay on the two legacies of Aikido - that of Morihei Ueshiba and that of his son, Kisshomaru Ueshiba.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aikidosangenkai.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW I agree that competition is useful.
> 
> Ignoring facts does not make them disappear.


Without turning this into an aikido thread, his later aikido Was not Daito ryu. He changed it because of his Religion, spirituel beliefs. The last Part of Daito ryu influence Was his Aiki budo with Saito in Iwama. After WW2 it changed. Even in 1935 as shown in the video...it's questionable if this is any real use.


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> Ignoring facts does not make them disappear.



Ueshiba's students and friends saying he was great is a fact. Saying that we can base his fighting prowess purely on those accounts is not a fact. Basing someone's fighting ability on the opinions of their friends and students is not objective. It's like the story Chuck Norris tells of Helio Gracie choking him out instantly before he knew what happened. Yeah, that's a cool story, but it isn't objective, it's just a story, and there's clearly some embellishment going on in the way Norris relays the events. 

Royce Gracie soundly beating people much larger than him in multiple NHB bouts wearing karate pajamas is objective, because we can ALL see what's happening.


----------



## caped crusader

Hanzou said:


> Ueshiba's students and friends saying he was great is a fact. Saying that we can base his fighting prowess purely on those accounts is not a fact.


well end of the day the KI better be strong in a bar brawl... 





I think you are better with Saito...LOL


----------



## caped crusader

sparring/sport contact karate will 100% help if you´re into this karate..Kyokushin


----------



## O'Malley

caped crusader said:


> Without turning this into an aikido thread, his later aikido Was not Daito ryu. He changed it because of his Religion, spirituel beliefs. The last Part of Daito ryu influence Was his Aiki budo with Saito in Iwama. After WW2 it changed. Even in 1935 as shown in the video...it's questionable if this is any real use.


He never changed the techniques because of his spiritual beliefs, and the documents from that time (as well as several testimonies from people who were there) contradict that claim. He delivered Daito ryu certificates after the war and the 1955 Maki no Ichi aikido manual contained the same technical information as the 1935 (Daito ryu) Budo manual. He stayed with Saito in Iwama until his death and Saito explicitly said that they kept doing techniques according to the 1935 Budo manual. The third Doshu, Moriteru Ueshiba, said that the techniques were changed by Kisshomaru Ueshiba, not Morihei:

“The techniques and way of Aikido that the founder O-Sensei left us, was not always easily understood by everyone. Doshu, my father, changed these so they would be easily understood, and he gave all of his life to spread this. For that reason he left behind many books that he had written. I grew up watching Doshu return from keiko to study and write for long hours and even with my child’s eyes I could see the importance of this work”.
Source: Moriteru Ueshiba, "To the spirit of the past Doshu", Aikikai Hombu Dojo Aikido Shimbun, January 1999.



Hanzou said:


> Ueshiba's students and friends saying he was great is a fact. Saying that we can base his fighting prowess purely on those accounts is not a fact. Basing someone's fighting ability on the opinions of their friends and students is not objective. It's like the story Chuck Norris tells of Helio Gracie choking him out instantly before he knew what happened. Yeah, that's a cool story, but it isn't objective, it's just a story, and there's clearly some embellishment going on in the way Norris relays the events.
> 
> Royce Gracie soundly beating people much larger than him in multiple NHB bouts wearing karate pajamas is objective, because we can ALL see what's happening.



Royce Gracie did this during one of the first inter-styles matches that were sanctionated and filmed. Expecting the same standard of proof from someone who died decades earlier is laughable. Absent video "proof" (whose validity is debatable...) we turn to documented facts (e.g. the fact that Kano sent several of his best students to study with Ueshiba, or the fact that a world-class judo athlete like Abbe studied and taught aikido after meeting Ueshiba) and testimonies from contemporaries. That's how historians study the past, and there's no reason why martial arts should be an exception.

A single anecdote (like the Norris one) is very different from consistent statements from every top martial artist at the time about Ueshiba's overall level. Talking about objectivity, Minoru Mochizuki had no problem saying that his daito ryu techniques were not sufficient to beat wrestlers, or that savate was superior to karate. Yet, he also said that nobody could beat Ueshiba when they trained together, despite Mochizuki being 24 years younger and an outstanding competitor by all accounts.


----------



## Hanzou

caped crusader said:


> well end of the day the KI better be strong in a bar brawl...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are better with Saito...LOL



Hmmm. Out of respect, I'll make no comment.


----------



## caped crusader

Anyway Buddy if you like it do it.  Watch a Daito Ryu video. It´s not the same and he did change it because of his Omoto religion.


O'Malley said:


> *He never changed the techniques because of his spiritual beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How War and Religion Shaped Modern Aikido, Part I by Stanley Pranin – Aikido Journal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aikidojournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


----------



## Steve

caped crusader said:


> sparring/sport contact karate will 100% help if you´re into this karate..Kyokushin


Badass.


----------



## caped crusader

__





						Morihei Ueshiba and Onisaburo Deguchi – Aikido Journal
					






					aikidojournal.com


----------



## caped crusader

Steve said:


> Badass.


yeah...whooped his *** !!!


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> Royce Gracie did this during one of the first inter-styles matches that were sanctionated and filmed. Expecting the same standard of proof from someone who died decades earlier is laughable. Absent video "proof" (whose validity is debatable...) we turn to documented facts (e.g. the fact that Kano sent several of his best students to study with Ueshiba, or the fact that a world-class judo athlete like Abbe studied and taught aikido after meeting Ueshiba) and testimonies from contemporaries. That's how historians study the past, and there's no reason why martial arts should be an exception.



Ueshiba had no problem filming his choreographed demonstrations in the 1930s, so what's the problem with filming a few sanctioned bouts showing off his fighting prowess?

And again, students and close friends simply cannot be trusted regardless of their background. They are highly biased towards the person in question due to their close inter-personal relationships. In terms of history, yes historians use first and second hand sources to construct historical narratives. We know that Ueshiba practiced martial arts. We know that Ueshiba established a school. We know that Ueshbia eventually founded Aikido. Fighting prowess is a different matter altogether, and Ueshiba's fighting ability isn't the only one questioned after the fact. Bruce Lee is another historical martial arts figure who's fighting ability is beginning to get questioned.



O'Malley said:


> A single anecdote (like the Norris one) is very different from consistent statements from every top martial artist at the time about Ueshiba's overall level. Talking about objectivity, Minoru Mochizuki had no problem saying that his daito ryu techniques were not sufficient to beat wrestlers, or that savate was superior to karate. Yet, he also said that nobody could beat Ueshiba when they trained together, despite Mochizuki being 24 years younger and an outstanding competitor by all accounts.



And those are multiple opinions from a clearly opinionated guy who clearly had a very high opinion of Ueshiba. There's so much bias at play that it isn't even funny.

Where's the objective evidence?


----------



## caped crusader

Anyway I think competition is good. Aside from the Fitness and tactics which are good it attracts young people to Martial arts.  Without competition not many will be interested in only Tradition.


----------



## caped crusader

I remember I met this shotokan master. He definitely liked Sport karate. Was a nice guy. Has a good following in Germany. 








						Hideo Ochi - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Oily Dragon

Hanzou said:


> You know what I was talking about. Let's not play semantics please.


Yes I do, but Shaolin Chan had a larger impact on the world than any martial art ever could. 

They sure outlasted the Ching Dynasty.  They changed the course of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese history, before becoming a household name in the West.

Also, the Manchus had actual armies.  No monastery was safe, even one filled with svelte, armed monks.


----------



## Hanzou

Oily Dragon said:


> Yes I do, but Shaolin Chan had a larger impact on the world than any martial art ever could.



I'm not sure I can agree with that..... That would be being EXTREMELY generous with the history of Chinese MA and the legend of Bodhidharma.


Oily Dragon said:


> They sure outlasted the Ching Dynasty.  They changed the course of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese history, before becoming a household name in the West.



They outlasted them because Europeans and the Japanese rolled in and broke the country.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Hanzou said:


> I'm not sure I can agree with that..... That would be being EXTREMELY generous with the history of Chinese MA and the legend of Bodhidharma.
> 
> 
> They outlasted them because Europeans and the Japanese rolled in and broke the country.


Chan didn't really start with Damo.  It began in India.  The Shaolin attribute dhyana practice to him, but they tended to do that a lot (attribute things to beloved dead people).

But what was basically an injection of Buddhism into Taoist minds eventually changed the spiritual fabric of all of Asia.  And well beyond.

Can't say any martial art has had the cultural impact of, say, this book.

*


*


----------



## Oily Dragon

Which is obviously based on this one...


----------



## geezer

Oily Dragon said:


> Can't say any martial art has had the cultural impact of, say, this book.
> 
> *View attachment 27515*


Dunno. ,

Like everybody else I read that in the mid 70s ....about the same time I started training Chinese martial arts. Seems to me that the sudden popularity of Pirsig's book and the Asian martial arts back then reflected our culture. How much lasting influence that book had is an open question.

Heck, how much of that book ...or Asian martial arts the average Joe even understood is an open question.



I mean seriously, how many young  "seekers" back in the 70s actually understood what Pirsig's book or the martial arts were really about?

Heck, I sure didn't!

...


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> He never changed the techniques because of his spiritual beliefs, and the documents from that time (as well as several testimonies from people who were there) contradict that claim. He delivered Daito ryu certificates after the war and the 1955 Maki no Ichi aikido manual contained the same technical information as the 1935 (Daito ryu) Budo manual. He stayed with Saito in Iwama until his death and Saito explicitly said that they kept doing techniques according to the 1935 Budo manual. The third Doshu, Moriteru Ueshiba, said that the techniques were changed by Kisshomaru Ueshiba, not Morihei:
> 
> “The techniques and way of Aikido that the founder O-Sensei left us, was not always easily understood by everyone. Doshu, my father, changed these so they would be easily understood, and he gave all of his life to spread this. For that reason he left behind many books that he had written. I grew up watching Doshu return from keiko to study and write for long hours and even with my child’s eyes I could see the importance of this work”.
> Source: Moriteru Ueshiba, "To the spirit of the past Doshu", Aikikai Hombu Dojo Aikido Shimbun, January 1999.
> 
> 
> 
> Royce Gracie did this during one of the first inter-styles matches that were sanctionated and filmed. Expecting the same standard of proof from someone who died decades earlier is laughable. Absent video "proof" (whose validity is debatable...) we turn to documented facts (e.g. the fact that Kano sent several of his best students to study with Ueshiba, or the fact that a world-class judo athlete like Abbe studied and taught aikido after meeting Ueshiba) and testimonies from contemporaries. That's how historians study the past, and there's no reason why martial arts should be an exception.
> 
> A single anecdote (like the Norris one) is very different from consistent statements from every top martial artist at the time about Ueshiba's overall level. Talking about objectivity, Minoru Mochizuki had no problem saying that his daito ryu techniques were not sufficient to beat wrestlers, or that savate was superior to karate. Yet, he also said that nobody could beat Ueshiba when they trained together, despite Mochizuki being 24 years younger and an outstanding competitor by all accounts.



The issue is people can still use Gracie BJJ effectively today. And so don't really rely on Royce to flagship the style.


----------



## O'Malley

drop bear said:


> The issue is people can still use Gracie BJJ effectively today. And so don't really rely on Royce to flagship the style.


Because GJJ was transmitted effectively. Ueshiba was a poor teacher and most of the time nobody knew what he was talking about. Plus, his son deliberately changed the techniques to make them easier.

Plus, the core of his method (which is basically Daito Ryu), that is his body conditioning techniques, was seldom taught, even more rarely understood and almost never practiced to any significant degree. After years of research I've finally found someone that showed me some stuff, so I would need to train really hard for a while, then test it out in a competitive setting. But my progress has been painfully slow, to be honest, and my time is not infinite.


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> Because GJJ was transmitted effectively. Ueshiba was a poor teacher and most of the time nobody knew what he was talking about. Plus, his son deliberately changed the techniques to make them easier.
> 
> Plus, the core of his method (which is basically Daito Ryu), that is his body conditioning techniques, was seldom taught, even more rarely understood and almost never practiced to any significant degree. After years of research I've finally found someone that showed me some stuff, so I would need to train really hard for a while, then test it out in a competitive setting. But my progress has been painfully slow, to be honest, and my time is not infinite.



If Ueshiba's disciples are acknowledging that he was a poor teacher, why not be more open to altering the system instead of doggedly adhering to his method of teaching?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> If Ueshiba's disciples are acknowledging that he was a poor teacher, why not be more open to altering the system instead of doggedly adhering to his method of teaching?


Unfortunately, I don't know many in the Aikido world who admit or understand this, though it does appear to be the case. I suspect he _seemed to be _teaching well to some (they thought they were picking up what he intended), but core information was lost. Or he left it out, which would be about as bad, from what I understand of the base of Daito-ryu.

I think some folks picked up some of the key principles, but my knowledge is too thin to understand whether what those folks passed on includes the core of Daito-ryu.


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> Because GJJ was transmitted effectively. Ueshiba was a poor teacher and most of the time nobody knew what he was talking about. Plus, his son deliberately changed the techniques to make them easier.
> 
> Plus, the core of his method (which is basically Daito Ryu), that is his body conditioning techniques, was seldom taught, even more rarely understood and almost never practiced to any significant degree. After years of research I've finally found someone that showed me some stuff, so I would need to train really hard for a while, then test it out in a competitive setting. But my progress has been painfully slow, to be honest, and my time is not infinite.



My theory why bjj is transmitted effectively was that it was advanced by the students and the competitors. More so than the masters.

So as soon as say someone started smashing fools with leg locks. Everyone ran out there and learnt leg locks.


----------



## caped crusader

O'Malley said:


> After years of research I've finally found someone that showed me some stuff, so I would need to train really hard for a while, then test it out in a competitive setting.


Can't wait to see this.
Don't keep us waiting too long.


----------



## caped crusader




----------



## caped crusader

The original Video of this fight has been out there for a while but I like this fight break down. His training on the mats competition or otherwise stood him in good stead.


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> If Ueshiba's disciples are acknowledging that he was a poor teacher, why not be more open to altering the system instead of doggedly adhering to his method of teaching?


Big question. I think that a lot of factors come into play. First, excessive respect towards the "creation" of Ueshiba (although almost 100% of what he did was Daito Ryu, except he expressed the concepts in terms of his Oomoto-kyo religion rather than the original Taoist-derived stuff). Second, an ostensibly strong focus on the "spiritual aspects" of the art, despite a lack of comprehension of these aspects. Third, a lack of technical leadership, as the biggest names in aikido have always had diverging methodologies and ideas. Fourth, the ego of masters that prevents them from questioning their own practice. Fifth, and most importantly, a lack of a common goal. Every aikidoka trains for different purposes and the only thing that kind of brings us together are lineage and a few common techniques (that everyone does differently anyway). You can't have any quality control when there's no quality standard.



gpseymour said:


> Unfortunately, I don't know many in the Aikido world who admit or understand this, though it does appear to be the case. I suspect he _seemed to be _teaching well to some (they thought they were picking up what he intended), but core information was lost. Or he left it out, which would be about as bad, from what I understand of the base of Daito-ryu.
> 
> I think some folks picked up some of the key principles, but my knowledge is too thin to understand whether what those folks passed on includes the core of Daito-ryu.


Well, nobody knows what was going through his head. He did teach some basic conditioning but it was always very cryptic (for example he practiced very important and specific stretching exercises in front of his students but he did so as part of his morning prayer, so nobody picked that up). He talked about the physical principles behind the stretching, but using Daoist metaphysical imagery (that he learned from daito ryu but that originated in China) coated in terminology from Oomoto-kyo (= a small religious sect with incredibly complex mythology). For example, instead of saying "hold your head that way and let your body sink that way" he'd say "stand on the floating bridge of Heaven that brings together Izanagi and Izanami". It's indeed technical information, he'd repeat it often but how the hell were his students supposed to know what he meant? You'd need knowledge of both Daoist and Oomoto cosmology, as well as hands-on technical instruction.

And for trying to do the stuff myself, it is a freaking complex, boring and strict form of training with slow progress, even with guidance. There's no need to hide anything, as the secrets keep themselves and make you work damn hard for the slightest results. And Ueshiba further coated that with layers upon layers of mystical BS. Frankly, I don't think he was that interested in teaching in the first place and he just enjoyed the attention. When in a good mood, he'd show some stuff. If I understand the guy's personality (based on several biographies and interviews with subject-matter experts) he saw himself as some kind of half-god and therefore it didn't matter if people didn't get it, as long as he'd ascend to godhood, but hey if they managed to grasp some stuff good for them.



drop bear said:


> My theory why bjj is transmitted effectively was that it was advanced by the students and the competitors. More so than the masters.
> 
> So as soon as say someone started smashing fools with leg locks. Everyone ran out there and learnt leg locks.


Agreed. Competition provides an art's community with a common goal towards which they can work. Innovation is encouraged and successes feed the art. Ironically, aikidoka like to talk about spontaneity but aikido is one of the most stale martial arts around. And also, when one looks at iconic daito ryu masters like Takeda or Ueshiba, those guys gravitated towards other skilled martial artists and frequently exchanged with them. If they were alive today, there's a good chance they'd do MMA.

That's why I think Tomiki was onto something with his idea of competition. It provides a common ruleset to train your timing and distancing, deal with resistance, exchange, innovate, challenge yourself and bring together people from all lineages. The rules may not be perfect, but nothing prevents us from improving them over time.

But even here, there are big obstacles. The biggest and most authoritative aikido organisation (the Aikikai, run by the founder's descendants) is violently against competition. Part of this is due to the decades-old decision to position aikido as "the non competitive martial art" for marketing purposes. Part of this is for fear of losing influence (and the money of affiliates) to the bodies that would organise said competitions. And another problem is that the Aikikai is trying to tap into the funds of the Olympic Committee and would see the emergence of "sports aikido" organisations as a threat to its wallet.


----------



## caped crusader

want to see anyone trying Aikido with Mike...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> My theory why bjj is transmitted effectively was that it was advanced by the students and the competitors. More so than the masters.
> 
> So as soon as say someone started smashing fools with leg locks. Everyone ran out there and learnt leg locks.


Agreed. I do think one issue TMA's (including the moderately traditional ones) run into is that we tend to really like the tradition, so we depend upon folks with many years in that tradition to guide evolution. But the longer we are in the tradition, the less likely we are to innovate.


----------



## hoshin1600

I've stated my opinions on Aikido several times over the years, I'm not interested in repeating it again.
My point however still stands.  The opinion that competitive MA is better than others is only a bias toward the presupposition that fighting is the only goal of martial arts.  We know this is not true.


----------



## Hanzou

hoshin1600 said:


> I've stated my opinions on Aikido several times over the years, I'm not interested in repeating it again.
> My point however still stands.  The opinion that competitive MA is better than others is only a bias toward the presupposition that fighting is the only goal of martial arts.  We know this is not true.



I always find it odd when people attempt to separate martial arts from fighting when the very thing we’re talking about teaches people how to break limbs,  choke people, or kick folks in the face.


----------



## _Simon_

Hanzou said:


> I always find it odd when people attempt to separate martial arts from fighting when the very thing we’re talking about teaches people how to break limbs,  choke people, or kick folks in the face.


Is a person that practices and refines their writing style aiming to be the best objective calligrapher, the #1 selling author or poet, the most literal and clearest communicator, newspaper editor, or using it as a vehicle of expression, a therapy, simply to improve their own writing or learn how to write again after a debilitating accident?

Of course MA involves fighting. Some people aren't interested in the pragmatic, measurable outcome-based training. As said earlier, the fighting aspect can be a means or an end, or somewhere inbetween.


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> I've stated my opinions on Aikido several times over the years, I'm not interested in repeating it again.
> My point however still stands.  The opinion that competitive MA is better than others is only a bias toward the presupposition that fighting is the only goal of martial arts.  We know this is not true.



No it doesn't. You created that presupposition yourself.

If you want to create some measure for. I don't  know whatever. Then create that and fairly compare the systems.

You can't create this void and then just fill it with whatever you want.


----------



## Hanzou

_Simon_ said:


> Is a person that practices and refines their writing style aiming to be the best objective calligrapher, the #1 selling author or poet, the most literal and clearest communicator, newspaper editor, or using it as a vehicle of expression, a therapy, simply to improve their own writing or learn how to write again after a debilitating accident?
> 
> Of course MA involves fighting. Some people aren't interested in the pragmatic, measurable outcome-based training. As said earlier, the fighting aspect can be a means or an end, or somewhere inbetween.



Okay, but if you're refining your writing style, your aim is to be a better writer, regardless of what your goal is. The very fact that you're spending time improving a skill means that your aim is to improve THAT skill.

Now, what is my aim if I'm in Japanese pajamas learning how to break someone's wrist? You can slap all the fancy/enlightened/religious junk you want to that practice, but the bottom line is that your aim is to become very good at snapping someone's wrist, and causing harm to that person. When I'm rolling around on a mat perfecting a triangle choke, my aim isn't to become the next Rickson Gracie or Gordon Ryan, my aim is to become proficient at choking someone unconscious (maybe even to death) with my legs.

Why are we playing these silly games? You're learning a martial art because you want to become proficient at fighting. You can apply fighting to a multitude or activities, from self defense, to competition, to confidence building, to discipline, but it ALL revolves around fighting. If you wanted to become a better person or get in shape via a nonviolent activity, you'd be doing calligraphy or ballet. You wouldn't be learning how to literally hurt, maim or kill people.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> I always find it odd when people attempt to separate martial arts from fighting when the very thing we’re talking about teaches people how to break limbs,  choke people, or kick folks in the face.


I agree.   I always think about Moby Dick, a symbol of many things, but still also a whale.  The story doesn’t work if you can’t read it literally first, and then explore the other meanings.   


_Simon_ said:


> Is a person that practices and refines their writing style aiming to be the best objective calligrapher, the #1 selling author or poet, the most literal and clearest communicator, newspaper editor, or using it as a vehicle of expression, a therapy, simply to improve their own writing or learn how to write again after a debilitating accident?
> 
> Of course MA involves fighting. Some people aren't interested in the pragmatic, measurable outcome-based training. As said earlier, the fighting aspect can be a means or an end, or somewhere inbetween.


no but they are writing.  The problem is that not all MA does involve fighting.  And where it doesn’t take the development of fighting skill seriously, any other ancillary benefits will be undermined because the activity itself lacks integrity.


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> No it doesn't. You created that presupposition yourself.
> 
> If you want to create some measure for. I don't  know whatever. Then create that and fairly compare the systems.
> 
> You can't create this void and then just fill it with whatever you want.


I dont understand what you mean by creating a void.  But here is an example of what I mean.
My 70 year old aunt practices and teaches Taichi. She started when she was in her 50s. She has no, nor has she ever had any interest in fighting. Tai chi is a recognized martial art.
It is absolutely impossible to convince her, that her art has NO Value because she can't fight. That argument is preposterous. Values are not universal, they are expressed through the individual.  values can be shared among a group, but that does not invalidate the values of others. And that is persicly what the "all about fighting" argument is trying to do. Hanzo is trying to invalidate other people's values and substitute his own. Partially out of ignorance, where those within his group share his values of competence of fighting so he thinks that's the ONLY view point and partially out of an immature and narcissistic attempt to put others down to increase his self perception of superiority. 
Some people Value fighting and some people don't.  
I'm pretty sure all the Koryu sword practitioners on this sight and around the world, are well aware that a gun is better in a fight than a sword. I'm also pretty sure they don't care because real combative fighting is not the point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Okay, but if you're refining your writing style, your aim is to be a better writer, regardless of what your goal is. The very fact that you're spending time improving a skill means that your aim is to improve THAT skill.
> 
> Now, what is my aim if I'm in Japanese pajamas learning how to break someone's wrist? You can slap all the fancy/enlightened/religious junk you want to that practice, but the bottom line is that your aim is to become very good at snapping someone's wrist, and causing harm to that person. When I'm rolling around on a mat perfecting a triangle choke, my aim isn't to become the next Rickson Gracie or Gordon Ryan, my aim is to become proficient at choking someone unconscious (maybe even to death) with my legs.
> 
> Why are we playing these silly games? You're learning a martial art because you want to become proficient at fighting. You can apply fighting to a multitude or activities, from self defense, to competition, to confidence building, to discipline, but it ALL revolves around fighting. If you wanted to become a better person or get in shape via a nonviolent activity, you'd be doing calligraphy or ballet. You wouldn't be learning how to literally hurt, maim or kill people.


For some people, it really isn’t. Sometimes, folks just like the discipline the process requires. Some just like the physicality. Some like the flow of it - a sort of moving meditation. And some really like the philosophy. And some like a combination of those things.

Which is why some don’t really care how good their training prepares them for a fight.


----------



## hoshin1600

This argument reminds me of an old consumer report, that tried to convince me that I should get rid of my corvette for a 1992 chevy Malibu. Because the corvette was not roomy, did not have good cargo space, poor gas mileage, did not seat a family of 4 and was 2x more expensive and thus was not worth the money.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> For some people, it really isn’t. Sometimes, folks just like the discipline the process requires. Some just like the physicality. Some like the flow of it - a sort of moving meditation. And some really like the philosophy. And some like a combination of those things.
> 
> Which is why some don’t really care how good their training prepares them for a fight.



*All* of that relates to fighting dude.

Let's take Aikido for example;

The discipline the process requires.... of snapping someone's wrist with little effort.
Enjoy the physicality .......... of snapping someone's wrist.
The flow ...... of redirecting a punch and snapping someone's wrist.
The philosophy....... of being so incredibly good at snapping someone's wrist that you'll only do it if absolutely necessary.


----------



## Oily Dragon

geezer said:


> Dunno. ,
> 
> Like everybody else I read that in the mid 70s ....about the same time I started training Chinese martial arts. Seems to me that the sudden popularity of Pirsig's book and the Asian martial arts back then reflected our culture. How much lasting influence that book had is an open question.
> 
> Heck, how much of that book ...or Asian martial arts the average Joe even understood is an open question.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean seriously, how many young  "seekers" back in the 70s actually understood what Pirsig's book or the martial arts were really about?
> 
> Heck, I sure didn't!
> 
> ...


Don't know, I've never read it.  I did read the one on archery.  It's a page turner.  Turtles all the way down.

Zen kensei Niten Doraku had a whole battleship named after him.  Not many martial artists can claim the same.


----------



## Oily Dragon

hoshin1600 said:


> I've stated my opinions on Aikido several times over the years, I'm not interested in repeating it again.
> My point however still stands.  The opinion that competitive MA is better than others is only a bias toward the presupposition that fighting is the only goal of martial arts.  We know this is not true.


See?  Niten Doraku wins again.


----------



## hoshin1600

Zen and the art of archery.
Not really about zen, not really about motorcycles either.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> I dont understand what you mean by creating a void.  But here is an example of what I mean.
> My 70 year old aunt practices and teaches Taichi. She started when she was in her 50s. She has no, nor has she ever had any interest in fighting. Tai chi is a recognized martial art.
> It is absolutely impossible to convince her, that her art has NO Value because she can't fight. That argument is preposterous. Values are not universal, they are expressed through the individual.  values can be shared among a group, but that does not invalidate the values of others. And that is persicly what the "all about fighting" argument is trying to do. Hanzo is trying to invalidate other people's values and substitute his own. Partially out of ignorance, where those within his group share his values of competence of fighting so he thinks that's the ONLY view point and partially out of an immature and narcissistic attempt to put others down to increase his self perception of superiority.
> Some people Value fighting and some people don't.
> I'm pretty sure all the Koryu sword practitioners on this sight and around the world, are well aware that a gun is better in a fight than a sword. I'm also pretty sure they don't care because real combative fighting is not the point.


Tao chi, for most, is not a martial art, any more than Tae Bo is a martial art.  There are some who allege it is, but they are few and even they admit that for most, the martial application is king gone.  

 It’s excellent exercise, though, particularly for older people.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> For some people, it really isn’t. Sometimes, folks just like the discipline the process requires. Some just like the physicality. Some like the flow of it - a sort of moving meditation. And some really like the philosophy. And some like a combination of those things.
> 
> Which is why some don’t really care how good their training prepares them for a fight.


Yeah, but as we have discussed in the past, if you cook but don’t produce food, you aren’t really cooking.  And any other benefits you might glean from the activity of developing the skill to cook will be lost because the activity you are engaging in is, ultimately, just pretend.

or look at it this way, if you pretend to cook and call it cooking, you are disrespecting the craft.  You can toss dishes around all day long but there is no difference between that and what a child does with a pretend kitchen.

This is what martial arts without fighting is.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> Zen and the art of archery.
> Not really about zen, not really about motorcycles either.


Is zen a martial art?


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> This argument reminds me of an old consumer report, that tried to convince me that I should get rid of my corvette for a 1992 chevy Malibu. Because the corvette was not roomy, did not have good cargo space, poor gas mileage, did not seat a family of 4 and was 2x more expensive and thus was not worth the money.


Yeah that works but Only if your corvette didn’t function as a car.


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> I dont understand what you mean by creating a void.  But here is an example of what I mean.
> My 70 year old aunt practices and teaches Taichi. She started when she was in her 50s. She has no, nor has she ever had any interest in fighting. Tai chi is a recognized martial art.
> It is absolutely impossible to convince her, that her art has NO Value because she can't fight. That argument is preposterous. Values are not universal, they are expressed through the individual.  values can be shared among a group, but that does not invalidate the values of others. And that is persicly what the "all about fighting" argument is trying to do. Hanzo is trying to invalidate other people's values and substitute his own. Partially out of ignorance, where those within his group share his values of competence of fighting so he thinks that's the ONLY view point and partially out of an immature and narcissistic attempt to put others down to increase his self perception of superiority.
> Some people Value fighting and some people don't.
> I'm pretty sure all the Koryu sword practitioners on this sight and around the world, are well aware that a gun is better in a fight than a sword. I'm also pretty sure they don't care because real combative fighting is not the point.



Yeah. But you haven't suggested what is the point. You have just illustrated what people either are not good at or don't want to do. 

Which is not really a good endorsement for a superior martial artist. 

Now I am not suggesting everyone has to be good or want to be good. But if someone wants to be good. We should be honest to them about the path that makes them good. 

This isn't just fighting. This is anything. 

So we have martial arts for fighting and martial arts for the other thing. What that thing is we have no idea but if martial arts isn't good for fighting then it must be good for the other thing. 

It makes no sense and is a gigantic leap to a conclusion. 

If martial arts is good for the other thing. It needs to base an argument on its own merits.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> For some people, it really isn’t. Sometimes, folks just like the discipline the process requires. Some just like the physicality. Some like the flow of it - a sort of moving meditation. And some really like the philosophy. And some like a combination of those things.
> 
> Which is why some don’t really care how good their training prepares them for a fight.



Kind of what hanzou said. Kind of not.

It might be more effective to achieve those aims if the person competes. It might not.

But they don't  cancel each other out. We are all kind of assuming they do.

And it doesn't matter what people like. If say I wanted to be an Aikido black belt. There are some non negotiable requirements that would go in to making me one.

I can't just do what I like. It is a different conversation


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Kind of what hanzou said. Kind of not.
> 
> It might be more effective to achieve those aims if the person competes. It might not.
> 
> But they don't  cancel each other out. We are all kind of assuming they do.
> 
> And it doesn't matter what people like. If say I wanted to be an Aikido black belt. There are some non negotiable requirements that would go in to making me one.
> 
> I can't just do what I like. It is a different conversation


I’m a black belt in aikido.  It’s just a different kind of aikido which focuses on drinking good scotch.  And I’m really good at it.  You might say I need to do some aikido, but that’s not why I train.  I train for the scotch.  

I’m going to open a school when I retire to teach aikido to people who want to be good at aikido without doing aikido.


----------



## Oily Dragon

hoshin1600 said:


> Zen and the art of archery.
> Not really about zen, not really about motorcycles either.


Written by a German, no less.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Steve said:


> Is zen a martial art?


That depends on what's troubling you.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I’m a black belt in aikido.  It’s just a different kind of aikido which focuses on drinking good scotch.  And I’m really good at it.  You might say I need to do some aikido, but that’s not why I train.  I train for the scotch.
> 
> I’m going to open a school when I retire to teach aikido to people who want to be good at aikido without doing aikido.



Exactly.


----------



## _Simon_

Hanzou said:


> Okay, but if you're refining your writing style, your aim is to be a better writer, regardless of what your goal is. The very fact that you're spending time improving a skill means that your aim is to improve THAT skill.
> 
> Now, what is my aim if I'm in Japanese pajamas learning how to break someone's wrist? You can slap all the fancy/enlightened/religious junk you want to that practice, but the bottom line is that your aim is to become very good at snapping someone's wrist, and causing harm to that person. When I'm rolling around on a mat perfecting a triangle choke, my aim isn't to become the next Rickson Gracie or Gordon Ryan, my aim is to become proficient at choking someone unconscious (maybe even to death) with my legs.
> 
> Why are we playing these silly games? You're learning a martial art because you want to become proficient at fighting. You can apply fighting to a multitude or activities, from self defense, to competition, to confidence building, to discipline, but it ALL revolves around fighting. If you wanted to become a better person or get in shape via a nonviolent activity, you'd be doing calligraphy or ballet. You wouldn't be learning how to literally hurt, maim or kill people.



I see what you're saying, but again like I said, I think it's important to note the context of means and end. MA does involve what we could call fighting (to varying degrees or levels). It does. But then you're saying that becoming a better fighter is the sole intention. You can use the template of "fighting" for other purposes, and improving your fighting is the vehicle or means for achieving those OTHER ends (I wouldn't even call them ends/goals).

Yes, you are getting better at fighting as an interim intention, but what I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be the end goal or whole entire reason you're doing it. Now I'm by no means saying oh martial arts is therefore some blank canvas you can just insert anything into, it is very specifically "thing", but like the writing example, it can moreso be the "medium" for exploring other realms of life. Fighting is what you do, getting better at the fighting (within the context of the art and what that actually means) happens, and this getting better at it doesn't have to be the sole intention. Do you sort of see what I'm getting at it? You are improving that skill, but you are not improving that skill in order to improve that skill (although that is a thing that is definitely focused on).

You seem to just dismiss this is as some pseudo-religious yap which is interesting. But I'm not saying that approach is better; those just wanting it to be solely about improving fighting ability is totally 100% fine.

And I'm by no means denying that it involves fighting, of course it does and yes it does all revolve around that. But how it's contextually conceived of and held matters. I'm saying it's a tool and not the end itself, see below for more rambling haha.



Steve said:


> no but they are writing.  The problem is that not all MA does involve fighting.  And where it doesn’t take the development of fighting skill seriously, any other ancillary benefits will be undermined because the activity itself lacks integrity.



Yeah and I guess it's very much art-specific as to what that fighting means. Capoeira fighting is different to say kickboxing fighting, yet there is an underlying similarity in the practice of what "fighting" might entail. Not in exact detail though.

But it being a martial art, has to be related to fighting or "martial" activities in some degree or another, you would think. But I feel this would be a whole other topic haha what does fighting mean, are there things that are fighting-related (technique practice technically is not "fighting", but is related to and can help improve it etc etc etc).

But I understand what you're saying. It's a complex topic and I don't really have any firm answers, because then it comes down to having an ultimate definition of what fighting means, AND what it means to develop fighting skill (and whether that is purely a contextual thing within the art or if you mean legitimately defending oneself), AND whether the ancillary benefits mean absolutely zilch because you weren't reeeally improving 'proper' fighting skills therefore it lacks integrity... there's alot here haha.

I guess my point is that, like writing, tea ceremony, whatever, there's richness in the process that can be incredibly rewarding, that isn't about a linear, measurable means to an end format. Sometimes it doesn't have to be do activity A to improve activity A. But do activity A as a tool of exploration, and improving activity A allows and opens up more depth and understanding for other stuff. Developing and improving a skill yes, working towards that yes, the sole end goal that this is ALL about? Not necessarily...


----------



## _Simon_

Steve said:


> Yeah, but as we have discussed in the past, if you cook but don’t produce food, you aren’t really cooking.  And any other benefits you might glean from the activity of developing the skill to cook will be lost because the activity you are engaging in is, ultimately, just pretend.
> 
> or look at it this way, if you pretend to cook and call it cooking, you are disrespecting the craft.  You can toss dishes around all day long but there is no difference between that and what a child does with a pretend kitchen.
> 
> This is what martial arts without fighting is.


Ehh... I actually don't think the analogy holds up... cooking without producing food is obviously not cooking. But it sounds like some are making the argument that if your sole goal is to only make better food, that it's not really cooking.

You do cook to cook better (or become a better cook), but perhaps the sole end for you is not that (yet is of course still the process. Getting better is integral). Perhaps you're bettering your cooking as an expression of love to a dear one and wanting to take care of them, you're still producing food, and you're still aiming at getting better, but the "being a better cook" is not really what it's ALL about.

And it gets too tricky here because we all seem to have different definitions of what "fighting" means, and some equate that with ability to defend oneself on "dah streetz", some would say you're improving your fighting ability within the context of your martial art (its ruleset, skillset, strengths etc)... there are so many things I feel like we're confusing and overlapping. But ah well hopefully we can still share respectfully and in a civil way.


----------



## Hanzou

_Simon_ said:


> I see what you're saying, but again like I said, I think it's important to note the context of means and end. MA does involve what we could call fighting (to varying degrees or levels). It does. But then you're saying that becoming a better fighter is the sole intention. You can use the template of "fighting" for other purposes, and improving your fighting is the vehicle or means for achieving those OTHER ends (I wouldn't even call them ends/goals).
> 
> Yes, you are getting better at fighting as an interim intention, but what I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be the end goal or whole entire reason you're doing it. Now I'm by no means saying oh martial arts is therefore some blank canvas you can just insert anything into, it is very specifically "thing", but like the writing example, it can moreso be the "medium" for exploring other realms of life. Fighting is what you do, getting better at the fighting (within the context of the art and what that actually means) happens, and this getting better at it doesn't have to be the sole intention. Do you sort of see what I'm getting at it? You are improving that skill, but you are not improving that skill in order to improve that skill (although that is a thing that is definitely focused on).



Any devotion to a physical discipline can bleed into other aspects of your life. Professional Basketball players are highly disciplined, incredible athletes, and have to conduct themselves in a certain manner in order to be better members of a team. Heck, Phil Jackson even incorporated Zen meditation and philosophy into his basketball coaching.

However, it still all revolved around putting a ball through a hoop.

I have no doubt that a 60 year old woman starting Aikido isn't looking to run the streets and snap the wrists of thugs and criminals, or walk into a ring and take down a MMA fighter. However, we would be fooling ourselves to believe that Aikido teaching her how to snap someone's wrist isn't a major reason why she's on that mat.



_Simon_ said:


> You seem to just dismiss this is as some pseudo-religious yap which is interesting. But I'm not saying that approach is better; those just wanting it to be solely about improving fighting ability is totally 100% fine.



I do, because there's inherent hypocrisy involved. Take Aikido for example; I've seen people claim on one hand that it isn't about fighting ability or violence. However at the same time they like to wax nostalgic about their founders supposed fighting prowess. I also remember several posters telling me that Aikido schools don't advertise themselves as self defense schools. I then proceeded to post multiple links to Aikido schools doing exactly that.

Obviously Aikido isn't the only culprit in this, it's rampant throughout nearly all martial arts, including BJJ. Only cults and religion breed that level of illogic and cognitive dissonance. I would say though that BJJ as a whole doesn't hide what it actually is with unnecessary layers of fluff and silliness. 

For now......


----------



## caped crusader

gpseymour said:


> For some people, it really isn’t. Sometimes, folks just like the discipline the process requires. Some just like the physicality. Some like the flow of it - a sort of moving meditation. And some really like the philosophy. And some like a combination of those things.
> 
> Which is why some don’t really care how good their training prepares them for a fight.


Yeah ...but it's annoying when they then try and convince us that it's of any use outside. This is the root of the problem in most cases, on here and any other forums.
If people want to do Meditation,  go with the flow, enjoy the Tradition as in aikido..Tai chi, then do it but just don't try and tell us it's like Tai Boxing or full contact Systems.


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But you haven't suggested what is the point. You have just illustrated what people either are not good at or don't want to do.
> 
> Which is not really a good endorsement for a superior martial artist.
> 
> Now I am not suggesting everyone has to be good or want to be good. But if someone wants to be good. We should be honest to them about the path that makes them good.
> 
> This isn't just fighting. This is anything.
> 
> So we have martial arts for fighting and martial arts for the other thing. What that thing is we have no idea but if martial arts isn't good for fighting then it must be good for the other thing.
> 
> It makes no sense and is a gigantic leap to a conclusion.
> 
> If martial arts is good for the other thing. It needs to base an argument on its own merits.


This I agree with 100 %.


----------



## caped crusader

Hanzou said:


> Aikido schools don't advertise themselves as self defense schools. I then proceeded to post multiple links to Aikido schools doing exactly that.


I have trained somewhat in Aikido years ago & i honestly still despair when people go on about their founder O`sensei  like he was a God with magical powers. Really teaching "self Defence" which is just not going to work.  I have also met people in these circles who were honest and said it was just for some training, history and tradition. They knew it was just not for street situations. Still you will get people who still think it´s going to be like Seagal flipping people over with his Kote Gaeshi throws in bars.
I trained for a time with a Master of Iwama Ryu who was in Iwama training. Even he said you´re better off with a hard martial art like karate, was not a dreamer and was also a high ranking Judoka. so no fool !


----------



## drop bear

So. Say we wanted to move away from fighting and look at mental health. 

There is still an argument for competitive martial arts.









						MMA and Yoga May Offer Benefits as PTSD Treatment
					

MMA, Yoga, and PTSD




					www.psychologytoday.com


----------



## _Simon_

Hanzou said:


> Any devotion to a physical discipline can bleed into other aspects of your life. Professional Basketball players are highly disciplined, incredible athletes, and have to conduct themselves in a certain manner in order to be better members of a team. Heck, Phil Jackson even incorporated Zen meditation and philosophy into his basketball coaching.
> 
> However, it still all revolved around putting a ball through a hoop.



Sure, absolutely.



Hanzou said:


> However, we would be fooling ourselves to believe that Aikido teaching her how to snap someone's wrist isn't a major reason why she's on that mat.



Bit of an assumption there .



Hanzou said:


> I do, because there's inherent hypocrisy involved. Take Aikido for example; I've seen people claim on one hand that it isn't about fighting ability or violence. However at the same time they like to wax nostalgic about their founders supposed fighting prowess. I also remember several posters telling me that Aikido schools don't advertise themselves as self defense schools. I then proceeded to post multiple links to Aikido schools doing exactly that.
> 
> Obviously Aikido isn't the only culprit in this, it's rampant throughout nearly all martial arts, including BJJ. Only cults and religion breed that level of illogic and cognitive dissonance. I would say though that BJJ as a whole doesn't hide what it actually is with unnecessary layers of fluff and silliness.


Ah okay. Well I know I wasn't saying that at all and didn't think the discussion was actually about this. You've blanket labelled the discussion to be about something else entirely. Of course there is some funky stuff and misguided beliefs surrounding some MAs and also what people believe they're practicing or not practicing. I wasn't claiming that the martial arts aren't about fighting let's hug it out and sing around the campfire. Fighting is involved. Whether the goal is to perfect fighting, using fighting as a tool and vehicle for expression or self-transformation... and not to mention the term "fighting" is so contextually different within each art. I just don't think this is such a black and white issue, as in, "the meaning/value of something is only the literal action of what it is, and ONLY that."

I mean to say something like pens are just for writing... I mean ahhhrgh, that just feels so disconnected from life to me XD


----------



## caped crusader

drop bear said:


> So. Say we wanted to move away from fighting and look at mental health.
> 
> There is still an argument for competitive martial arts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MMA and Yoga May Offer Benefits as PTSD Treatment
> 
> 
> MMA, Yoga, and PTSD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com


interesting, fighting PTSD with fighting which probably caused the PTSD in the first place.


----------



## caped crusader

Steve said:


> Tae Bo


Billy Blanks...  my wife did this when it was popular in the Gym. She kept insisting it was a real martial arts... bless her


----------



## dvcochran

Hanzou said:


> I always find it odd when people attempt to separate martial arts from fighting when the very thing we’re talking about teaches people how to break limbs,  choke people, or kick folks in the face.


It is not an either/or argument @hoshin1600 is making. It is simply a 'part of the whole' statement being made. 

Why people refuse to believe that both can be included in a comprehensive program is beyond me. 
Lazy I guess.


----------



## Steve

_Simon_ said:


> Ehh... I actually don't think the analogy holds up... cooking without producing food is obviously not cooking. But it sounds like some are making the argument that if your sole goal is to only make better food, that it's not really cooking.


I don't think that's quite got it.  The point is that if you are cooking but not producing any food, that whether or not any other goals unrelated to food can be achieved is questionable.  Because cooking intrinsically involves preparing food.  Just as martial arts intrinsically involves fighting.  And, as with tai chi, when you remove the fighting you are no longer doing martial arts.  



_Simon_ said:


> You do cook to cook better (or become a better cook), but perhaps the sole end for you is not that (yet is of course still the process. Getting better is integral). Perhaps you're bettering your cooking as an expression of love to a dear one and wanting to take care of them, you're still producing food, and you're still aiming at getting better, but the "being a better cook" is not really what it's ALL about.


Once again, it's not what the primary goal is, because for some cooks, the primary goal may not have anything to do with food.  In fact, some cooks don't enjoy cooking and do it only because they don't want to starve, and are tired of microwave fare.  

But here's the thing.  They may never be really good at it.  In fact, they may not care at all about being good at cooking.  They may hate the idea of cooking.  But through the act of cooking, they are achieving alternative goals (whatever they may be)... and they are also getting better at preparing food, because food is intrinsic to the activity.

In the same way, a person who studies in a martial art should, even if they have no interest in fighting, be gaining functional skill as a fighter.  And I would say that, if they are not gaining skill as a fighter, they aren't ACTUALLY doing a martial art, even if they are enjoying themselves and gaining some other benefits.  And to be clear, I have no problems with other goals.  But if you aren't learning to fight, you are basically doing Tae Bo, and if you're good with Tae Bo, more power to you.

Where I start to get really irritated isn't with people just doing what they want.  Even if you're a little misguided, I don't care about that.  It's when people start selling that bunk to others.  I think that's sneaky and deceitful at best, and dangerous at worst.  



_Simon_ said:


> And it gets too tricky here because we all seem to have different definitions of what "fighting" means, and some equate that with ability to defend oneself on "dah streetz", some would say you're improving your fighting ability within the context of your martial art (its ruleset, skillset, strengths etc)... there are so many things I feel like we're confusing and overlapping. But ah well hopefully we can still share respectfully and in a civil way.


Shoot, I am willing to be about as flexible in this regard as possible.  If you're learning to physically impose your will on someone else reliably and in an objectively measurable way, I'd say fine.  And I would also say that while being well rounded is a goal for some, I'm even okay if folks embrace gaps in their training, though I recommend people be self aware.  So, if you're a TKD competitive and you know your punching skills stink because you keep your hands down in competition, fine. If you're a butt scooting BJJ competitor who doesn't like training takedowns, fine.  Those are still martial arts, because the skills these folks ARE learning are related to physically imposing their will against an opponent in a way that is reliable and objectively measurable.  

And further, if you are in a style that teaches actual martial arts, the learning curve is going to be relatively predictable.


----------



## Steve

caped crusader said:


> interesting, fighting PTSD with fighting which probably caused the PTSD in the first place.


Trauma causes PTSD, not fighting.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> It is not an either/or argument @hoshin1600 is making. It is simply a 'part of the whole' statement being made.
> 
> Why people refuse to believe that both can be included in a comprehensive program is beyond me.
> Lazy I guess.


You have it all flipped around.  No one believes that martial arts should ONLY impart martial skill.  As has been said by everyone at different times, there are a lot of great reasons to train in a quality school learning functional fighting skills.  @drop bear just shared an article about treating PTSD through training.

The inverse, however, isn't true.  A lot of people argue that fighting skills are optional.  Which is where it starts to look like cooking without food.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Yeah, but as we have discussed in the past, if you cook but don’t produce food, you aren’t really cooking.  And any other benefits you might glean from the activity of developing the skill to cook will be lost because the activity you are engaging in is, ultimately, just pretend.
> 
> or look at it this way, if you pretend to cook and call it cooking, you are disrespecting the craft.  You can toss dishes around all day long but there is no difference between that and what a child does with a pretend kitchen.
> 
> This is what martial arts without fighting is.


If someone isn't trying to learn to fight, then them not fighting is not relevant to their pursuit. If someone wants to learn to mix ingredients (not necessarily in any way that works for cooking) then whether those ingredients or their proportions work in cooking or not isn't relevant.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Kind of what hanzou said. Kind of not.
> 
> It might be more effective to achieve those aims if the person competes. It might not.
> 
> But they don't  cancel each other out. We are all kind of assuming they do.
> 
> And it doesn't matter what people like. If say I wanted to be an Aikido black belt. There are some non negotiable requirements that would go in to making me one.
> 
> I can't just do what I like. It is a different conversation


I'm not sure anything there disagrees with anything I said. If it does, let me know.

I agree that competition might or might not help. Certainly if someone just wants fitness benefits, and they are motivated by competition, then competing will likely lead them to better fitness, whether they care about fighting skill or not. If they are looking for relaxing meditation, then forms competition might be of benefit - unless competition causes them anxiety, then they'd probably achieve their aims better without it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I’m a black belt in aikido.  It’s just a different kind of aikido which focuses on drinking good scotch.  And I’m really good at it.  You might say I need to do some aikido, but that’s not why I train.  I train for the scotch.
> 
> I’m going to open a school when I retire to teach aikido to people who want to be good at aikido without doing aikido.


I'm pretty sure you're aware this is a ridiculous attempt at a logical argument.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

_Simon_ said:


> But it being a martial art, has to be related to fighting or "martial" activities in some degree or another, you would think.


This gets into part of the problem we have in these discussions. I do think a lot of folks feel the "martial" means it must be centered around fighting. But we don't have a good term for martial-derived arts that no longer have any focus on fighting. I think (I'm certainly no expert on this) that Ki-society Aikido (Shin-shin Toitsu) is explicitly not about fighting, and all about ki development. Within my admittedly vague definition, it's still a "martial art". Cardio kickboxing isn't, in my mind, for reasons I can't explain. I'd have no problem with someone using a definition of martial art that included both or neither, so long as we understand (even vaguely) what the definition being used is.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> If someone isn't trying to learn to fight, then them not fighting is not relevant to their pursuit. If someone wants to learn to mix ingredients (not necessarily in any way that works for cooking) then whether those ingredients or their proportions work in cooking or not isn't relevant.


You think if you're in a school that has "martial arts school" on the shingle outside, folks don't think they're learning something related to fighting?  It's very relevant.  

Or maybe more to the point, they don't have to learn to fight, but they really ought to be told they aren't learning to fight.  There is a very real difference between being told you're learning to cook and actually learning to cook, or being told you're learning to cook, but really you're just playacting.  There is nothing inherently wrong with learning zen through the act of pretending to cook, provided you aren't being fooled into thinking real food is in your future.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

caped crusader said:


> Yeah ...but it's annoying when they then try and convince us that it's of any use outside. This is the root of the problem in most cases, on here and any other forums.
> If people want to do Meditation,  go with the flow, enjoy the Tradition as in aikido..Tai chi, then do it but just don't try and tell us it's like Tai Boxing or full contact Systems.


Some of it (whatever "it" is) will be useful "outside" (I assume you mean outside the dojo). It will depend what "it" is and how it's taught/trained. So if someone takes BJJ purely for fitness and fun (because you'll get a lot of both in the right gym), they will also get some useful skills that translate outside that gym.


----------



## hoshin1600

Living creatures have requirements and needs in order to survive. Food,  drink, shelter, procreation, etc.  In order to know when to eat and when to +□@/♡,  the person has to arrange all these needs and desires in a linear, hierarchical manner of importance. This is called a value. To value one thing over another and place it up higher in the hierarchy.  But the values are not static meaning they have to rearrange themselves, otherwise you would always be looking for food and never point your aim at any of the other needs. Where you aim your attention is what ever value you are currently placing at the top of importance. So, sometimes Food and other times shelter or sleep.  
While we may share values, we do not share them equally at all times. It only makes sense that one person would be hungry and another person thirsty and would be looking to fill that need.
It is well studied and documented that violence and aggression wane as the person ages. So as we age the need for aggression diminishes. As the brain develops we find more complex and subtle alternatives to aggression to solve problems. We also no longer have the need to compete for sexual mates. All species either pair bond for life or compete for mates, where winner takes all. Humans are a combination of the two so the need to compete for mates is within our DNA but we age out of that prime pool. 
As we age our values obviously change. Everyone knows this is true because you no longer place your child security blanket at the pinnacle of your values.

Now to address Drop bears point,
The method to attain your need, your need to fight in this case, can also be ranked within a valued hierarchy. I was never disputing this. Some arts are obviously going to produce better results on certain aspects. We place value on all of the aspects of a martial art and we rank order those. One example of opposing  values might be , Does your value of fighting out weigh your value of safe training?  So yes can can find very realistic and effective methods of training but at what cost?  The military has a very high value on effective training but it is not uncommon for that training to have casualties and loss of life. Elite special forces have had to balance these values. One person may value fight competence but need to go to work in the morning so they would choose TKD over an MMA school where the likelihood of injury is greater.  While some schools may advertise an over stated ability to produce results, I feel that the results speak for themselves. It is true dunning Kruger effect afflicts some people and can over estate their ability. I do feel in general people choose an art in which their needs are met. Weighing out their values and finding the right combination that expresses itself within the right school for them. Or they quit all together not knowing that their are options, or a third option of starting in one school and when their values change they find a more suitable school that fills those needs.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

caped crusader said:


> I have trained somewhat in Aikido years ago & i honestly still despair when people go on about their founder O`sensei  like he was a God with magical powers. Really teaching "self Defence" which is just not going to work.  I have also met people in these circles who were honest and said it was just for some training, history and tradition. They knew it was just not for street situations. Still you will get people who still think it´s going to be like Seagal flipping people over with his Kote Gaeshi throws in bars.
> I trained for a time with a Master of Iwama Ryu who was in Iwama training. Even he said you´re better off with a hard martial art like karate, was not a dreamer and was also a high ranking Judoka. so no fool !


I believe a lot of what's in Aikido was really not intended for direct use. It teaches control and movement that can be applied to almost any technique (which works best, IMO, with a base of some functional techniques under it). Problem is I don't think that's how a lot of practitioners - even instructors - see it.

It's possible I'm wrong.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I'm pretty sure you're aware this is a ridiculous attempt at a logical argument.


If you think it's ridiculous, you're just not getting it.  Is this where you're going to pivot to ad homs and attacking me?  If so, please, just save it.  

Nothing wrong with the analogy, as it's supported by quite literally EVERY OTHER activity in the human experience, without exception.  Self defense/fighting is the only activity I have literally ever heard of where some folks are tricked into thinking they are learning something they are never asked to do.  The entire story of the Music Man (great movie, btw) is based on a con man doing this very thing with music.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So. Say we wanted to move away from fighting and look at mental health.
> 
> There is still an argument for competitive martial arts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MMA and Yoga May Offer Benefits as PTSD Treatment
> 
> 
> MMA, Yoga, and PTSD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com


Agreed. Not universal (nothing is), but as with any sport, there's some benefit for the right folks.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Some of it (whatever "it" is) will be useful "outside" (I assume you mean outside the dojo). It will depend what "it" is and how it's taught/trained. So if someone takes BJJ purely for fitness and fun (because you'll get a lot of both in the right gym), they will also get some useful skills that translate outside that gym.


Outside the gym?  Maybe.  If someone trains in BJJ, they will definitely gain useful skills that translate to practical skill INSIDE the gym.  The better they are at those skills, the more likely they _might _be useful outside.  The difference is what they're definitely learning INSIDE the art, not whether it will be useful outside the art.  

Some folks aren't learning anything inside the art, either.  That's the problem.  Or more accurately, not learning what they think they're learning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> And I would say that, if they are not gaining skill as a fighter, they aren't ACTUALLY doing a martial art, even if they are enjoying themselves and gaining some other benefits.


I think this might be the basis of any disagreement here - it's about the definition of "martial art". I'm okay with this statement - it just means you and I include different things in that category. What would you call an activity that is almost (by this definition) a martial art, but is not at all about developing fighting skill (though it may use the movements once meant for that purpose)?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I believe a lot of what's in Aikido was really not intended for direct use. It teaches control and movement that can be applied to almost any technique (which works best, IMO, with a base of some functional techniques under it). Problem is I don't think that's how a lot of practitioners - even instructors - see it.
> 
> It's possible I'm wrong.


So, if you agree that aikido isn't for learning any practical fighting skills, we're all in agreement.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I think this might be the basis of any disagreement here - it's about the definition of "martial art". I'm okay with this statement - it just means you and I include different things in that category. What would you call an activity that is almost (by this definition) a martial art, but is not at all about developing fighting skill (though it may use the movements once meant for that purpose)?


Exercise.


----------



## caped crusader

Steve said:


> Trauma


severe and lasting emotional shock and pain caused by an extremely upsetting experience, or a case of such shock happening:

killing a person fighting?


----------



## Hanzou

dvcochran said:


> It is not an either/or argument @hoshin1600 is making. It is simply a 'part of the whole' statement being made.
> 
> Why people refuse to believe that both can be included in a comprehensive program is beyond me.
> Lazy I guess.



Okay, what would be the point of a "comprehensive program" that revolves around techniques that can hurt, maim, or kill another person? Yeah, I get in excellent shape rolling in BJJ. That improved stamina allows me to grapple longer, which in turn allows me more time to perform a lock or a strangle on my opponent. What's more, my improved stamina would help me survive in an actual self defense situation.

Really people, this isn't that hard. I mean what do you think the term *Martial Art* means?


----------



## Steve

caped crusader said:


> severe and lasting emotional shock and pain caused by an extremely upsetting experience, or a case of such shock happening:
> 
> killing a person fighting?


Sure, that's one possible source of trauma.


----------



## dvcochran

Hanzou said:


> Okay, what would be the point of a "comprehensive program" that revolves around techniques that can hurt, maim, or kill another person? Yeah, I get in excellent shape rolling in BJJ. That improved stamina allows me to grapple longer, which in turn allows me more time to perform a lock or a strangle on my opponent. What's more, my improved stamina would help me survive in an actual self defense situation.
> 
> Really people, this isn't that hard. I mean what do you think the term *Martial Art* means?


I fully agree and have stated such many times. 
My question is why and what are you trying to separate? What do you want to leave out? It all works together. It is all part of a good, comprehensive program. It is all Martial Arts.


----------



## caped crusader

dvcochran said:


> what are you trying to separate?


just my opinion but i think maybe he means more modern systems that are trained in Gyms and Fight clubs such as MMA style training.
They are only concerned with fighting skills and winning a fight. No philosophy about this master and that master. 
Arm bar, choke..punch his face in..win ...simple as that so yeah i understand his point. 
Listen when i was boxing as a young lad i only cared about the above. winning.


----------



## caped crusader

without starting a new thread i will just say too... how much respect should you show a Master or so called Grand Master?
I have never been into this *** kissing you see in some Dojos. 
Master has always right and knows everything. A lot of Japanese now train in MMA type training. I think all this mystic Master BS is dying out. It´s about what *you can really do.  *
Also physical fitness is just as important as skill. magical dreaming from the dark ages won´t cut it now. Look at Bruce Lee he was all about staminia and a high degree of fitness.


----------



## Alan0354

caped crusader said:


> without starting a new thread i will just say too... how much respect should you show a Master or so called Grand Master?
> I have never been into this *** kissing you see in some Dojos.
> Master has always right and knows everything. A lot of Japanese now train in MMA type training. I think all this mystic Master BS is dying out. It´s about what *you can really do.
> Also physical fitness is just as important as skill. magical dreaming from the dark ages won´t cut it now. Look at Bruce Lee he was all about staminia and a high degree of fitness.*


YES!!!

All the "secret" skill and moves don't mean a thing if you don't have the power and the conditioning. Strength is just as important as skill and techniques. I've seen a famous master in TKD, his technique is very good for sure, but he is not strong from looking at him in the gym doing weights. If he has to fight with a strong guy that has not done any training, I won't bet on he can win. If he cannot drop the guy on the first kick or punch, he might be in for a big surprised. If the guy gets hold of him after withstanding the first strike, he might be wrestled down, distant will be too close for any effective strike and there is no way he can out muscle the strong guy.

Fitness, strength and conditioning is every bit as important. That's the reason I do 50:50 in my exercise regiment. 1/2 the time on strength and half divide between kick boxing and stick fight. I am training at home, I am close to 69, part of the weight exercise are 20 pushup wearing 60lbs weight jackets with feet on the chair for 5 sets( less reps on the last two sets), bicep curls of 40lbs dumbbells, squat with 60lbs jackets and 40lbs dumbbell on each hand etc. as my weekly regiment. I treat my kick boxing and stick fight as aerobics, I hate running!!!


----------



## caped crusader

Alan0354 said:


> YES!!!
> 
> All the "secret" skill and moves don't mean a thing if you don't have the power and the conditioning. Strength is just as important as skill and techniques. I've seen a famous master in TKD, his technique is very good for sure, but he is not strong from looking at him in the gym doing weights. If he has to fight with a strong guy that has not done any training, I won't bet on he can win. If he cannot drop the guy on the first kick or punch, he might be in for a big surprised. If the guy gets hold of him after withstanding the first strike, he might be wrestled down, distant will be too close for any effective strike and there is no way he can out muscle the strong guy.
> 
> Fitness, strength and conditioning is every bit as important. That's the reason I do 50:50 in my exercise regiment. 1/2 the time on strength and half divide between kick boxing and stick fight. I am training at home, I am close to 69, part of the weight exercise are 20 pushup wearing 60lbs weight jackets with feet on the chair for 5 sets( less reps on the last two sets), bicep curls of 40lbs dumbbells, squat with 60lbs jackets and 40lbs dumbbell on each hand etc. as my weekly regiment. I treat my kick boxing and stick fight as aerobics, I hate running!!!


Yup Bruce Lee was ahead of his time not only in his system but also diet & weight training.
He really loved reading about Bodybuilding,diet , training.
I mean you have to have a strong foundation & be able to fight without gassing out.
you are doing a great workout Alan.


----------



## caped crusader

@ Alan do you know this guy? some radical ideas but might be useful as we get older. he is also of the opinion humans never needed overhead presses, which of course have blown out a few shoulders in pros like Frank zane. I now just do side,rear laterals with Dumbbells.  Rear delts trained also with band face pulls. Some things he says i agree with some things not so much but always good to look at the big picture. He was actually trained by Bill pearl(in the beginning) who i spoke to in 2005, 3 times on the phone. Great guy. Ex US  Navy man.


----------



## Alan0354

caped crusader said:


> Yup Bruce Lee was ahead of his time not only in his system but also diet & weight training.
> He really loved reading about Bodybuilding,diet , training.
> I mean you have to have a strong foundation & be able to fight without gassing out.
> you are doing a great workout Alan.


Did Bruce Lee whooped those so called "masters" butt!!! I was in Hong Kong ( where I was from) till Bruce died, we had a lot of news about Bruce Lee. The MA society HATED him.

Funny they all quiet as mouse when Lee was alive, but after he died, they all came out and said they can beat him!!!


----------



## caped crusader

side note: i mention Bill Pearl as he was a very good wrestler. A Grappler.


----------



## caped crusader

Alan0354 said:


> Did Bruce Lee whooped those so called "masters" butt!!! I was in Hong Kong ( where I was from) till Bruce died, we had a lot of news about Bruce Lee. The MA society HATED him.
> 
> Funny they all quiet as mouse when Lee was alive, but after he died, they all came out and said they can beat him!!!


OK Legends are built sometimes bigger than they were but there is no doubt about his ideas being very advanced for that time. I always liked his idea of taking what is useful to you. nothing carved in stone. Train your body & mind. be fit. was no fool but also a clever man in that he made his films and promoted himself.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> If someone isn't trying to learn to fight, then them not fighting is not relevant to their pursuit. If someone wants to learn to mix ingredients (not necessarily in any way that works for cooking) then whether those ingredients or their proportions work in cooking or not isn't relevant.



It still might be relevant. Competition martial artists might still be superior in developing this non fighting skill.


So this 

"I believe a lot of what's in Aikido was really not intended for direct use. It teaches control and movement that can be applied to almost any technique (which works best, IMO, with a base of some functional techniques under it). Problem is I don't think that's how a lot of practitioners - even instructors - see it."

Might be developed better through competition.


----------



## caped crusader

drop bear said:


> Might be developed better through competition.


there is Tomiki Aikido which is in my opinion not a bad thing.




drop bear said:


> "I believe a lot of what's in Aikido was really not *intended for direct use.*
> definetly not for direct use. If you want a system with sabaki that is realistic, with useful techniques ..Wado Ryu. shindo yoshin Ryu sabaki & locks, strikes.


look at the very short, sharp sabaki.


----------



## Buka

caped crusader said:


> Billy Blanks...  my wife did this when it was popular in the Gym. She kept insisting it was a real martial arts... bless her


I guarantee you, with one hundred percent certainty, she was not told that by Billy.


----------



## caped crusader

Buka said:


> I guarantee you, with one hundred percent certainty, she was not told that by Billy.


It was a Hot iron, womans training group sort of guy who i know from the fitness circuit... a BI man. met him once where i worked..was enough. 
Ironically his courses were full of women.


----------



## Buka

caped crusader said:


> It was a Hot iron, womans training group sort of guy who i know from the fitness circuit... a BI man. met him once where i worked..was enough.
> Ironically his courses were full of women.


I don't know what a "BI man" means.


----------



## caped crusader

Buka said:


> I don't know what a "BI man" means.


that´s good.


----------



## caped crusader

For the Aikido Buffs... Tomiki i believe was a modern thinker like Kano. Notice the throws after the 14 min mark.


----------



## Buka

caped crusader said:


> that´s good.


I just googled it. Not only are you wrong, you're treading on thin ice here, sir.


----------



## caped crusader

Buka said:


> I just googled it. Not only are you wrong, you're treading on thin ice here, sir.


really ? why ?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> I always find it odd when people attempt to separate martial arts from fighting when the very thing we’re talking about teaches people how to break limbs,  choke people, or kick folks in the face.


I would like to interject here, I don’t see it so much as a separation. It’s that there are other things on the list besides fighting. You will get old one day, your fighting prowess will wane, your body will change, and so will your viewpoints. With that in mind, what will you have gained if fighting is the only reason you trained?


----------



## drop bear

caped crusader said:


> there is Tomiki Aikido which is in my opinion not a bad thing.
> 
> 
> 
> look at the very short, sharp sabaki.



Ok. But let's also discuss this in terms of understanding. There is no way you will understand the nuance of technique by drilling alone. You don't understand how to flow properly or get proper timing or even how to cope with loss or failure, how to deal with things like ego. Even how to make a technique that is someone else's, a technique that is yours. You may not even understand that these elements are vital to create a depth of understanding as to what you are doing.

Almost whatever they are trying to accomplish a good competitive guy will understand it better.

You have to experiment with the process to understand it better than the guy who taught it to you.

So we look at ippon seonagi.





And this does not show a great understanding of the move or the concept.





Here we see a completely different animal.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> Any devotion to a physical discipline can bleed into other aspects of your life. Professional Basketball players are highly disciplined, incredible athletes, and have to conduct themselves in a certain manner in order to be better members of a team. Heck, Phil Jackson even incorporated Zen meditation and philosophy into his basketball coaching.
> 
> However, it still all revolved around putting a ball through a hoop.
> 
> I have no doubt that a 60 year old woman starting Aikido isn't looking to run the streets and snap the wrists of thugs and criminals, or walk into a ring and take down a MMA fighter. However, we would be fooling ourselves to believe that Aikido teaching her how to snap someone's wrist isn't a major reason why she's on that mat.
> 
> 
> 
> I do, because there's inherent hypocrisy involved. Take Aikido for example; I've seen people claim on one hand that it isn't about fighting ability or violence. However at the same time they like to wax nostalgic about their founders supposed fighting prowess. I also remember several posters telling me that Aikido schools don't advertise themselves as self defense schools. I then proceeded to post multiple links to Aikido schools doing exactly that.
> 
> Obviously Aikido isn't the only culprit in this, it's rampant throughout nearly all martial arts, including BJJ. Only cults and religion breed that level of illogic and cognitive dissonance. I would say though that BJJ as a whole doesn't hide what it actually is with unnecessary layers of fluff and silliness.
> 
> For now......


That statement sounds dismissive and rather elitist, so I like it for that. I think there could still be something out there that you might not know or have experienced. Try to stay open to ideas and processes you are unfamiliar with or you might miss something useful that could improve your fighting ability that has no obvious connection to fighting.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Wing Woo Gar said:


> You will get old one day, your fighting prowess will wane, your body will change, and so will your viewpoints. With that in mind, what will you have gained if fighting is the only reason you trained?


The simple answer is, "Fighting is fun." To be able to dodge a punch, or block a kick can make you very excited. When you take someone down, you feel that you have confidence in yourself.

When you get old, you will spend the rest of your life trying to enhance/complete your fighting principle/strategy. There are a lot of work in this area that can be done.

When you get old, you will have 2 options.

1. Give up MA and only care about health.
2. Try to maintain your MA ability until the day that you die.

People use method 1 may train like this:






People use method 2 may train like this:


----------



## Steve

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I would like to interject here, I don’t see it so much as a separation. It’s that there are other things on the list besides fighting. You will get old one day, your fighting prowess will wane, your body will change, and so will your viewpoints. With that in mind, what will you have gained if fighting is the only reason you trained?


As with any aging athlete, you slow down.  This is really an odd point that is brought pretty often.  Getting too old to participate fully in the activity doesn't negate the development of skill. 

Ultimately, consider how utterly sad it would be to do something for years and have very little functional ability to show for your efforts... getting up toward your 10,000 hours you think is learning how to physically defend yourself, only to realize that it has been 10,000 hours learning a version of professional wrestling. 

As your physical abilities begin to wane and you are at a point where you should by all rights be able to share the benefits of your experience... you realize that you aren't very good at what you think you've been learning all these years.  I guess, you might say, "Oh man.  I'm 60 and I have never been in a fight... but at least I can pretend to break someone's wrist and play act at curb stomping them."


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> I always find it odd when people attempt to separate martial arts from fighting when the very thing we’re talking about teaches people how to break limbs,  choke people, or kick folks in the face.


Agree with you 100% there. My favor question is, "What's your finish move?"

I won't be interested in any training that won't lead me toward my finish move.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

caped crusader said:


> severe and lasting emotional shock and pain caused by an extremely upsetting experience, or a case of such shock happening:
> 
> killing a person fighting?


Careful here, do you have ptsd? If you do then please elaborate, if you don’t, then I will tell you now that You are out of your wheelhouse.


----------



## drop bear

Wing Woo Gar said:


> That statement sounds dismissive and rather elitist, so I like it for that. I think there could still be something out there that you might not know or have experienced. Try to stay open to ideas and processes you are unfamiliar with or you might miss something useful that could improve your fighting ability that has no obvious connection to fighting.



Having an unbiased view of new techniques doesn't mean you have to give credence to all techniques. 

If you applied just basic Critical thinking to martial arts then you are open to being swayed by evidence. 

It is not a case where you just accept any old thing.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> As with any aging athlete, you slow down.  This is really an odd point that is brought pretty often.  Getting too old to participate fully in the activity doesn't negate the development of skill.
> 
> Ultimately, consider how utterly sad it would be to do something for years and have very little functional ability to show for your efforts... getting up toward your 10,000 hours you think is learning how to physically defend yourself, only to realize that it has been 10,000 hours learning a version of professional wrestling.
> 
> As your physical abilities begin to wane and you are at a point where you should by all rights be able to share the benefits of your experience... you realize that you aren't very good at what you think you've been learning all these years.  I guess, you might say, "Oh man.  I'm 60 and I have never been in a fight... but at least I can pretend to break someone's wrist and play act at curb stomping them."


You miss my point. I’m past your benchmark of10,000 hrs by quite a stretch. I have fought plenty. I am still large and strong and fast. I have hurt people more times than I care to remember. I practice both a hard and a soft style of cma. I trained in jiujitsu for several years before starting cma. I am getting older (50’s) and am finding that my interest in improving my skills has less to do with hurting people and more to do with using that same ability and energy to help people. It is my experience that most people who would be willing to attack me don’t have much fighting skill to speak of. They are like children mostly. Is it moral to beat up children just because I can? Is that really the end goal? Thats such a waste and a pity. Just get a gun and call it good, that is also a martial art, they teach it to thousands every year in basic training in eight weeks.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> Having an unbiased view of new techniques doesn't mean you have to give credence to all techniques.
> 
> If you applied just basic Critical thinking to martial arts then you are open to being swayed by evidence.
> 
> It is not a case where you just accept any old thing.


A very full cup you have there sir. You must have infallible skill at distilling the very best… I wonder what it would take to convince you that it’s a wide world out there? Not everyone with skill is willing to demonstrate it to just any old person. This whole thread really just saddens me a bit.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The simple answer is, "Fighting is fun." To be able to dodge a punch, or block a kick can make you very excited. When you take someone down, you feel that you have confidence in yourself.
> 
> When you get old, you will spend the rest of your life trying to enhance/complete your fighting principle/strategy. There are a lot of work in this area that can be done.
> 
> When you get old, you will have 2 options.
> 
> 1. Give up MA and only care about health.
> 2. Try to maintain your MA ability until the day that you die.
> 
> People use method 1 may train like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People use method 2 may train like this:


I love it, I do it, I plan to continue.


----------



## caped crusader

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Careful here, do you have ptsd? If you do then please elaborate, if you don’t, then I will tell you now that You are out of your wheelhouse.


no i don´t but i have a good friend who does.  Actually PTSD is not only a problem in the military but in other walks of life.
It´s only in recent years they have recognized this.
shell shock was around in WW1 but it was called lack of moral fiber. 
I think the most absurd thing was from an ex French Foreign legionnaire who i spoke to.  well actually two and both had contradicting stories. 
One was a Belgian guy who served in a conflict can´t remember now and was wounded he said, no Legionnaire ever suffered from PTSD. He was a serious drunk but did serve in the Legion. won´t go into details. 
The other was a German guy who joined after WW2 and served in Russia with my wifes Grandfather. He was in Indochina and told me we were surrounded and i was not prepared to die for France(was ( was freed to go to the then communist East Germany).
just throwing this in there. I have also met stalingrad vets who told me their story. I saw that they were real men but still suffered.


----------



## drop bear

Wing Woo Gar said:


> A very full cup you have there sir. You must have infallible skill at distilling the very best… I wonder what it would take to convince you that it’s a wide world out there? Not everyone with skill is willing to demonstrate it to just any old person. This whole thread really just saddens me a bit.



The issue is this line of reasoning is a marketing scam. I know nothing really of running so how could I possibly tell if Usain Bolt knows more about running than say, Stephen Segal?

I mean I could look at both runners achiements or see how fast they run. But that would take at least five minutes and the ability to write words in to a search engine.

I am far better off giving the same credibility to both those guys just in case there is a secret that is not discernible by basically all methods of research in to the topic.

And this is on the presumption that runners like Stephen Segal are actually using better systems than ursain bolt to make sure their methods are only used by a select few who have proven themselves worthy enough.

And the presumption that ursain bolt literally won't give this information away.





I mean come on. How far do people expect me to suspend disbelief?


----------



## caped crusader

Wing Woo Gar said:


> A very full cup you have there sir. You must have infallible skill at distilling the very best… I wonder what it would take to convince you that it’s a wide world out there? Not everyone with skill is willing to demonstrate it to just any old person. This whole thread really just saddens me a bit.


You come over like a bit of a guy who is full of himself and probably has very little to bring to the table.
Tell us all your skills...we are all ears


----------



## caped crusader

Wing Woo Gar said:


> You miss my point. I’m past your benchmark of10,000 hrs by quite a stretch. I have fought plenty. I am still large and strong and fast. I have hurt people more times than I care to remember.


😁


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> Having an unbiased view of new techniques doesn't mean you have to give credence to all techniques.
> 
> If you applied just basic Critical thinking to martial arts then you are open to being swayed by evidence.
> 
> It is not a case where you just accept any old thing





caped crusader said:


> You come over like a bit of a guy who is full of himself and probably has very little to bring to the table.
> Tell us all your skills...we are all ears


Fair enough, Its obvious you have all the info here. If you don’t like my input that’s ok. It’s just my opinion. I don’t think I am anyone special. I am a long time martial arts enthusiast, I have some experiences that inform my opinion. I really am not here to prove myself or impress anyone. I thought this was a forum to discuss and debate and maybe, just maybe get some interesting or lucid info.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

caped crusader said:


> You come over like a bit of a guy who is full of himself and probably has very little to bring to the table.
> Tell us all your skills...we are all ears


I wasn’t talking about myself as the skilled person.


----------



## Hanzou

Wing Woo Gar said:


> That statement sounds dismissive and rather elitist, so I like it for that. I think there could still be something out there that you might not know or have experienced. Try to stay open to ideas and processes you are unfamiliar with or you might miss something useful that could improve your fighting ability that has no obvious connection to fighting.



Except we're talking about a topic I know a great deal about, since I've been doing martial arts for the majority of my life.

In addition, the POINT is that everything you do in a martial art should improve your fighting ability.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

caped crusader said:


> You come over like a bit of a guy who is full of himself and probably has very little to bring to the table.
> Tell us all your skills...we are all ears


Perhaps you are projecting. You already have all the answers, I realize there are questions I’m not even aware of. Those are two very different states.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You think if you're in a school that has "martial arts school" on the shingle outside, folks don't think they're learning something related to fighting?  It's very relevant.
> 
> Or maybe more to the point, they don't have to learn to fight, but they really ought to be told they aren't learning to fight.  There is a very real difference between being told you're learning to cook and actually learning to cook, or being told you're learning to cook, but really you're just playacting.  There is nothing inherently wrong with learning zen through the act of pretending to cook, provided you aren't being fooled into thinking real food is in your future.


Okay, I'm good with that. If folks aren't learning fighting skill, and the school is using the term "martial art", it probably is a good idea to make it clear that they are using martial tradition for other purposes. I'm not sure I've said anything counter to that idea.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Outside the gym?  Maybe.  If someone trains in BJJ, they will definitely gain useful skills that translate to practical skill INSIDE the gym.  The better they are at those skills, the more likely they _might _be useful outside.  The difference is what they're definitely learning INSIDE the art, not whether it will be useful outside the art.
> 
> Some folks aren't learning anything inside the art, either.  That's the problem.  Or more accurately, not learning what they think they're learning.


You seem determined to argue with me on this, but most of your posts in response to me seem like slightly angry agreements. I'm confused.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> Except we're talking about a topic I know a great deal about, since I've been doing martial arts for the majority of my life.
> 
> In addition, the POINT is that everything you do in a martial art should improve your fighting ability.


How long have you been alive? I too have spent the majority of my life training. The years are inconsequential. I have seen lots of old bulls that produce the same amount of manure as the young ones. Take Steven seagull for example.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> So, if you agree that aikido isn't for learning any practical fighting skills, we're all in agreement.


Is this the first time you've actually noticed me saying that? Because I've made essentially this same statement probably a dozen times in threads you were in.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Exercise.


Even if it's not being used for fitness?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

caped crusader said:


> 😁


Taking part of my quote out of context to make your point?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

caped crusader said:


> without starting a new thread i will just say too... how much respect should you show a Master or so called Grand Master?
> I have never been into this *** kissing you see in some Dojos.
> Master has always right and knows everything. A lot of Japanese now train in MMA type training. I think all this mystic Master BS is dying out. It´s about what *you can really do.  *
> Also physical fitness is just as important as skill. magical dreaming from the dark ages won´t cut it now. Look at Bruce Lee he was all about staminia and a high degree of fitness.


Yeah, that's one of the things that became problematic in JMA, in my experience. Not always (my Judo instructor never gave me that vibe, but then I knew him as a family friend long before), but too often. I've even had to correct students (mostly those with prior MA experience) for apologizing for asking what they think is an awkward question. I like questions, even the ones I can't answer. It means they are thinking for themselves, and not just taking what I give them at face value.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It still might be relevant. Competition martial artists might still be superior in developing this non fighting skill.
> 
> 
> So this
> 
> "I believe a lot of what's in Aikido was really not intended for direct use. It teaches control and movement that can be applied to almost any technique (which works best, IMO, with a base of some functional techniques under it). Problem is I don't think that's how a lot of practitioners - even instructors - see it."
> 
> Might be developed better through competition.


Might, yeah. But I covered that already in a previous response to you.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> The issue is this line of reasoning is a marketing scam. I know nothing really of running so how could I possibly tell if Usain Bolt knows more about running than say, Stephen Segal?
> 
> I mean I could look at both runners achiements or see how fast they run. But that would take at least five minutes and the ability to write words in to a search engine.
> 
> I am far better off giving the same credibility to both those guys just in case there is a secret that is not discernible by basically all methods of research in to the topic.
> 
> And this is on the presumption that runners like Stephen Segal are actually using better systems than ursain bolt to make sure their methods are only used by a select few who have proven themselves worthy enough.
> 
> And the presumption that ursain bolt literally won't give this information away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean come on. How far do people expect me to suspend disbelief?


I see your point on the marketing scam, I also agree that the majority of what we find out there is bs scams. Sad state of affairs, but all too true. The thing is, there really are a few legitimate folks that have rare skills. Don’t discount that fact. Just like any treasure, you might not find it, but it does exist. ( I am not in any way saying that I am a treasure).


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> Except we're talking about a topic I know a great deal about, since I've been doing martial arts for the majority of my life.
> 
> In addition, the POINT is that everything you do in a martial art should improve your fighting ability.


Did you see where I said I liked it? Do you guys read the whole thread?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> Except we're talking about a topic I know a great deal about, since I've been doing martial arts for the majority of my life.
> 
> In addition, the POINT is that everything you do in a martial art should improve your fighting ability.


A great deal is not everything. Certainly there is at least one thing you may have missed?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Except we're talking about a topic I know a great deal about, since I've been doing martial arts for the majority of my life.
> 
> In addition, the POINT is that everything you do in a martial art should improve your fighting ability.


Okay, if we're going to go on experience, I've been doing martial arts nearly my entire life. And I argue that it's not necessary that everything in MA training improve fighting ability. Leaving aside the concept of what I'd allow to be called MA that aren't focus on fighting, I have zero problem with MA curriculum including things that don't really do anything noticeable for fighting skill. Some folks want different things from a program. For instance, I often help students develop their communication and questioning skills, neither of which are tied to the ability to impose your will on someone in a physical manner.

In fact, I doubt I'd have stuck around long-term at a place that was wholly focused on fighting skill. I've dabbled in programs that did that, but they never held my focus.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> the POINT is that everything you do in a martial art should improve your fighting ability.


Agree! Almost in every MA forums, you will see comment such as, "MA is more than just for fighting. If you truly care about fight, go get yourself a gun."

Some forum even go much deeper such as, "Use mind, don't use muscle."

It's very easy to get lost in those kind of discussion.

Many years ago, someone said, "MA training has 3 stages, physical stage, mental stage, and spiritual stage". I believe I'm still in the physical stage and I have no intention to move into next stage.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

gpseymour said:


> Okay, if we're going to go on experience, I've been doing martial arts nearly my entire life. And I argue that it's not necessary that everything in MA training improve fighting ability. Leaving aside the concept of what I'd allow to be called MA that aren't focus on fighting, I have zero problem with MA curriculum including things that don't really do anything noticeable for fighting skill. Some folks want different things from a program. For instance, I often help students develop their communication and questioning skills, neither of which are tied to the ability to impose your will on someone in a physical manner.
> 
> In fact, I doubt I'd have stuck around long-term at a place that was wholly focused on fighting skill. I've dabbled in programs that did that, but they never held my focus.


Thank you for the pleasant discourse. I must be inarticulate, my commentary tends to inflame certain temperments, though that is not my intent.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You seem determined to argue with me on this, but most of your posts in response to me seem like slightly angry agreements. I'm confused.


It's a discussion forum.  I'm not angry in the least, but I don't always have the time to fluff up my responses to you in a vain effort to avoid hurting your feelings.  But hey, I'll take slightly angry now.  It's a little better than when you get huffy and start calling me patronizing.  



gpseymour said:


> Is this the first time you've actually noticed me saying that? Because I've made essentially this same statement probably a dozen times in threads you were in.


I've never actually noticed you saying that aikido doesn't teach people any practical fighting skills.  I recall you saying you teach people things you think will help them in a fight, and you use the phrase "self defense focus", which honestly, I don't get.  At best, you seem to have no trouble reconciling mutually exclusive statements.  Maybe someday, you'll be able to explain that to me in a way that makes sense.  



gpseymour said:


> Even if it's not being used for fitness?


Well, I mean exercise is just exercise.  Fitness is an unavoidable byproduct of exercising, if you do it enough.  So... I guess, yes.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> Except we're talking about a topic I know a great deal about, since I've been doing martial arts for the majority of my life.
> 
> In addition, the POINT is that everything you do in a martial art should improve your fighting ability.


just curious, how could you see my comment as anything but friendly chat?  This perplexes and vexes me. Text never conveys the feeling behind it. Most posters here have probably trained for some time, but it’s difficult to discern where people are coming from, experience, skill, and goal wise. My intent is provoke, but not offend. Please accept my apology if you feel I have accomplished the latter rather than the former.


----------



## Hanzou

Wing Woo Gar said:


> How long have you been alive? I too have spent the majority of my life training. The years are inconsequential. I have seen lots of old bulls that produce the same amount of manure as the young ones. Take Steven seagull for example.



We weren’t talking about you though. We weren’t talking about Steven “Seagull” either.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Okay, if we're going to go on experience, I've been doing martial arts nearly my entire life. And I argue that it's not necessary that everything in MA training improve fighting ability. Leaving aside the concept of what I'd allow to be called MA that aren't focus on fighting, I have zero problem with MA curriculum including things that don't really do anything noticeable for fighting skill. Some folks want different things from a program. For instance, I often help students develop their communication and questioning skills, neither of which are tied to the ability to impose your will on someone in a physical manner.
> 
> In fact, I doubt I'd have stuck around long-term at a place that was wholly focused on fighting skill. I've dabbled in programs that did that, but they never held my focus.



If you’re talking about verbal skills to diffuse conflict, that is part of someone’s fighting ability as well. Imposing your will onto someone isn’t always physical, oftentimes it is mental. In Bjj it’s considered an aspect of “invisible Jiujitsu”, along the same lines of temperament, awareness, and confidence. Obviously other MAs call it something else entirely, but it is still an aspect of your ability to resolve conflict. It is training to make you a more calm and collective fighter/warrior/whatever.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

caped crusader said:


> really ? why ?


Because the context of your comment is bigoted. The fact that you do not recognize that informs our earlier discourse.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> We weren’t talking about you though. We weren’t talking about Steven “Seagull” either.


He was mentioned earlier.


----------



## Hanzou

Wing Woo Gar said:


> just curious, how could you see my comment as anything but friendly chat?  This perplexes and vexes me. Text never conveys the feeling behind it. Most posters here have probably trained for some time, but it’s difficult to discern where people are coming from, experience, skill, and goal wise. My intent is provoke, but not offend. Please accept my apology if you feel I have accomplished the latter rather than the former.



Where do you get the notion that I didn’t view your response as “friendly”?


----------



## isshinryuronin

Hanzou said:


> the POINT is that everything you do in a martial art should improve your fighting ability.


I think this depends on several things.  This is true if you're training only to be a professional or top amateur sport fighter, a mob enforcer, a bully, an assassin, and the like.  All these skills come under the martial art definition.  

Also, MA training can have activities that indirectly aid in one's fighting ability such as awareness, coordination, physical training, tactical thinking, and so on. But these things can also be applied to areas outside of fighting, so are useful to people who do not practice MA for the sole reason of being a fighting machine.

Then, there are things that TMA can develop that have nothing to do with fighting, but aid in the development of one's character such as respect, a view of life, harmony, peace of mind, responsibility, self-control and a code of morality. This is why the old masters were selective on who they taught.  One's character was considered, not just their fighting ability.

The beauty of properly taught MA is that _its value goes beyond fighting_, to paraphrase Bruce Lee. Martial arts is a great vehicle to develop these other benefits and virtues that can be applied in all life's endeavors and last a lifetime, even when too old to fight. By your view, such a senior citizen or handicapped person would be wasting their time training in MA.

So, to sum up, in my view of MA, _your quoted statement is 90% true._  But by dismissing that other quantitative 10%, the qualitative loss is much more.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> We weren’t talking about you though. We weren’t talking about Steven “Seagull” either.
> 
> 
> Hanzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you’re talking about verbal skills to diffuse conflict, that is part of someone’s fighting ability as well. Imposing your will onto someone isn’t always physical, oftentimes it is mental. In Bjj it’s considered an aspect of “invisible Jiujitsu”, along the same lines of temperament, awareness, and confidence. Obviously other MAs call it something else entirely, but it is still an aspect of your ability to resolve conflict. It is training to make you a more calm and collective fighter/warrior/whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> is that what you are practicing here? Your calm and collected verbal skills to resolve conflict? Temperment?
Click to expand...


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> Where do you get the notion that I didn’t view your response as “friendly”?


The general tone sounds somewhat hostile, so I thought I would ask rather than assume.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

isshinryuronin said:


> I think this depends on several things.  This is true if you're training only to be a professional or top amateur sport fighter, a mob enforcer, a bully, an assassin, and the like.  All these skills come under the martial art definition.
> 
> Also, MA training can have activities that indirectly aid in one's fighting ability such as awareness, coordination, physical training, tactical thinking, and so on. But these things can also be applied to areas outside of fighting, so are useful to people who do not practice MA for the sole reason of being a fighting machine.
> 
> Then, there are things that TMA can develop that have nothing to do with fighting, but aid in the development of one's character such as respect, a view of life, harmony, peace of mind, responsibility, self-control and a code of morality. This is why the old masters were selective on who they taught.  One's character was considered, not just their fighting ability.
> 
> The beauty of properly taught MA is that _its value goes beyond fighting_, to paraphrase Bruce Lee. Martial arts is a great vehicle to develop these other benefits and virtues that can be applied in all life's endeavors and last a lifetime, even when too old to fight. By your view, such a senior citizen or handicapped person would be wasting their time training in MA.
> 
> So, to sum up, in my view of MA, _your quoted statement is 90% true._  But by dismissing that other quantitative 10%, the qualitative loss is much more.


Well said.


----------



## Alan0354

caped crusader said:


> @ Alan do you know this guy? some radical ideas but might be useful as we get older. he is also of the opinion humans never needed overhead presses, which of course have blown out a few shoulders in pros like Frank zane. I now just do side,rear laterals with Dumbbells.  Rear delts trained also with band face pulls. Some things he says i agree with some things not so much but always good to look at the big picture. He was actually trained by Bill pearl(in the beginning) who i spoke to in 2005, 3 times on the phone. Great guy. Ex US  Navy man.


I don't know this guy, but that's good information, I should know that, but never think this deep. When I said I put my feet on the chair to do weighted pushups, It's really not like incline press. I use my dumbbell to put space between my body and the ground because I need space for the weighted jackets. The jacket will rest on the ground if I don't have the dumbbells when I lower my body in every pushup. This is a video I did a long time ago with only one jacket of about 45lbs.





Notice the chair mostly compensate for the extra height of the dumbbell I hold onto.

I since add a second jacket and split 40lbs on the big jacket and 20lbs in the smaller thinner jacket and I wear the thinner first and the thick one on top. The video was make almost 2 years ago at the very beginning of the shutdown.

At home, I don't have a way to do decline press. I do body weight dip. I am 175lbs, so it's not exactly light weight. I could wear the 20lbs jacket, but I have to watch out my elbow. I can feel my elbow is at the limit. I used to be able to hang a 45lbs plate 10 years ago to do the dip. I just do 3 sets of 15 body weight dip now a days.

There are definitely limits on working out at home, It's not about buying equipment, it's about not making the family room looking like a gym. The looks for the house is important too. I am thinking about adding a third car garage and use it as a gym. Then I can get a cage with a bench. Now, if I want to exercise the lower pecks, I have to use this kind of twist bars:
https://www.amazon.com/GETUPP-Practical-Shoulder-Exercise-Exerciser/dp/B087F2JBN2/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=chest+exercise+bar&qid=1636176456&qsid=144-4670265-6726520&sr=8-6&sres=B01M1B5QGD,B087F2JBN2,B075NXJR4P,B07MT36F46,B086ZDVVG4,B0065RBOWK,B087G723SR,B08L3JTVHR,B087YKM6KS,B092W21N51,B0895PVDT1,B08FFKRVRY,B08SC64K6N,B093D1C1QX,B00VI8W5FQ,B01L7791PY,B08JTWB39S,B09G9SSF5Q,B08ZN4XNNF,B08QN1FL7N

I have 30lbs, 40lbs and 50lbs bars already. I stopped doing this a few months ago as I got lazy. But after watching your video, That's about the only way to work the lower pecks.

I do pulldown with a lot of elastic bands, those elastic bands are very good, it gets very strong towards the end of the stretch. I just loop them around the chinup bar and pull down sitting on a low stepping stool. That seems to work the pecks also.

As I get older, my left shoulder started to make popping sound when I push the shoulder/deltoid. I used to do 10reps 25lbs dumbbell lateral raise, but I have to lower the weight as it pops on every move and discomfort later on. I have to lower to 17.5lbs each hand and just do 15 to 20 reps sets. This is part of the reason to use two weight jacket, I have to lift the jacket overhead to wear and I have to lift the jacket with one hand and use the other hand to move everything in place. My best military press is 50lbs each hand for 10 reps, I cannot lift and hold 60lbs jacket with one hand over my head. So I have to split into 40:20.

I use elastic bands to do incline press, but again, the left shoulder start popping so I have to keep the resistance down.

Since I added the stick fight, my weekly exercise is getting very long, a little over 7 hours a week, which is almost like 1 1/2hrs a day 5 days a week. It takes too much time to drive to the gym for weights and MA at home. Not only that, I talk a lot in the gym also. I went to a gym that was formerly Gold's Gym which is a heavy duty gym, people are serious people, lots of muscles and push heavy weights. Like you almost can count on people pushing 225lbs bench as starter. I want to go to those gym to keep myself humble, not going to those yuppie gym where benching 135lbs is good already. But you'd be surprised those musclemen also exercise their jaw muscle a lot too. We talk, we laugh!!! I usually spent 1hr working out, then 1/2hr doing jaw exercise!!! I cannot afford this after adding the stick fight regiment. I am stuck at home doing everything for now.

Too bad we all have to get old. Just less than 10 years ago, I could do 5 to 6reps 225lbs bench, before I quit last year, I could only do 185lbs.

You ever try close hands pushups? That is the index fingers and thumbs of both hands touching each other and do pushups. This concentrates the stress on triceps, not the chest. That's part of my triceps exercise. I do 3 sets of 20 every Friday. then I do 30lbs dumbbell kick back also. ( sad I used to do 35lbs easily, but too much stress on the elbows now).


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> I've never actually noticed you saying that aikido doesn't teach people any practical fighting skills.  I recall you saying you teach people things you think will help them in a fight, and you use the phrase "self defense focus", which honestly, I don't get.  At best, you seem to have no trouble reconciling mutually exclusive statements.  Maybe someday, you'll be able to explain that to me in a way that makes sense.


I'll be honest in that I've been skimming this thread, and this part stuck out to me for some reason. Gpseymour has said a bunch of times that he doesn't think aikido is a good art for self-defense alone, or for fighting alone. What he's said is that people should start with other arts, and then add aikido once they're capable of self-defense/fighting as it then adds something extra, and that's what he believes its purpose is. 

That might be why this stuck out to me actually-it's such a unique position for a teacher of any art to have, that their art only really works after you've learned another. Hopefully, I A) got his position correct, and B) explained it right.


----------



## _Simon_

Steve said:


> Just as martial arts intrinsically involves fighting.


See, I think we've strayed onto something that's more an issue of definition. Is it that a martial art is called a martial art because it "involves techniques" that could be used in fighting? Is it because it literally involves fighting? Is it because it will lead to an OUTCOME of being a better fighter?


Steve said:


> In the same way, a person who studies in a martial art should, even if they have no interest in fighting, be gaining functional skill as a fighter. And I would say that, if they are not gaining skill as a fighter, they aren't ACTUALLY doing a martial art


And again this ol semantics thing I reckon is the trickiest haha... functional skill as a fighter outside the dojo in a real fight or within their club? These may be very, very different criteria. I actually agree, but I don't really even know what we're talking about anymore haha...

Because in that case, if I was training in a dojo that trained pretty much purely to enhance one's ability in point-sparring tournaments, is this still a martial art? They're improving their functional skill as a fighter within this context, but can we truly say that none of that would ever, ever work in a real fight? Yeah, straying into "self-defence" claim territory...

Also not expecting any answer to any questions posed haha, just saying that I think it's a definition thing that keeps coming up...

Anyway, I guess my point is that ultimately of course martial arts involves improving fighting skill. But I personally don't feel like that has to be the sole PURPOSE (as in, moreso outcome-based intention) of the martial art, but that the "improving fighting" acts as a holistic vehicle, and the fighting isn't the end in itself (but can be), but of course is utilised and progressed. It's a change from linear more literal and pragmatic definition to a different paradigm altogether. But dunno if I'm making any sense. All in all haha, I personally don't do martial arts to become a better fighter, but the process INVOLVES becoming a better fighter (or things that improve fighting ability. Ugh.. again hazy XD).



Steve said:


> Where I start to get really irritated isn't with people just doing what they want. Even if you're a little misguided, I don't care about that. It's when people start selling that bunk to others. I think that's sneaky and deceitful at best, and dangerous at worst.


Oh for sure, 100% agree.


----------



## _Simon_

Hanzou said:


> That improved stamina allows me to grapple longer, which in turn allows me more time to perform a lock or a strangle on my opponent. What's more, my improved stamina would help


Sorry. If improving stamina is in your martial art then you're not doing a martial art because it's not fighting. It's basically kata.

(I am 100% being facetious here, but maybe not  )


----------



## Oily Dragon

Hanzou said:


> Any devotion to a physical discipline can bleed into other aspects of your life. Professional Basketball players are highly disciplined, incredible athletes, and have to conduct themselves in a certain manner in order to be better members of a team. Heck, Phil Jackson even incorporated Zen meditation and philosophy into his basketball coaching.
> 
> However, it still all revolved around putting a ball through a hoop.
> 
> I have no doubt that a 60 year old woman starting Aikido isn't looking to run the streets and snap the wrists of thugs and criminals, or walk into a ring and take down a MMA fighter. However, we would be fooling ourselves to believe that Aikido teaching her how to snap someone's wrist isn't a major reason why she's on that mat.
> 
> 
> 
> I do, because there's inherent hypocrisy involved. Take Aikido for example; I've seen people claim on one hand that it isn't about fighting ability or violence. However at the same time they like to wax nostalgic about their founders supposed fighting prowess. I also remember several posters telling me that Aikido schools don't advertise themselves as self defense schools. I then proceeded to post multiple links to Aikido schools doing exactly that.
> 
> Obviously Aikido isn't the only culprit in this, it's rampant throughout nearly all martial arts, including BJJ. Only cults and religion breed that level of illogic and cognitive dissonance. I would say though that BJJ as a whole doesn't hide what it actually is with unnecessary layers of fluff and silliness.
> 
> For now......


----------



## drop bear

_Simon_ said:


> Sorry. If improving stamina is in your martial art then you're not doing a martial art because it's not fighting. It's basically kata.
> 
> (I am 100% being facetious here, but maybe not  )



Yeah. But this becomes one of those weird logic games that don't really work. 

So generally we have the argument that if hill sprints isn't fighting but makes fighters more effective then kata because it isn't fighting makes fighters more effective. Same as catching fish because it isn't fighting makes fighters more effective. 

And it is generally bunkai where people go wrong anyway.


----------



## drop bear

Oily Dragon said:


> View attachment 27541



Yeah. Concentrate on all the steps that lead to that finger being there at that specific time and place.


----------



## Hanzou

isshinryuronin said:


> I think this depends on several things.  This is true if you're training only to be a professional or top amateur sport fighter, a mob enforcer, a bully, an assassin, and the like.  All these skills come under the martial art definition.
> 
> Also, MA training can have activities that indirectly aid in one's fighting ability such as awareness, coordination, physical training, tactical thinking, and so on. But these things can also be applied to areas outside of fighting, so are useful to people who do not practice MA for the sole reason of being a fighting machine.
> 
> Then, there are things that TMA can develop that have nothing to do with fighting, but aid in the development of one's character such as respect, a view of life, harmony, peace of mind, responsibility, self-control and a code of morality. This is why the old masters were selective on who they taught.  One's character was considered, not just their fighting ability.



Why do you think that old masters were selective in who they taught? Why do you think the teaching of harmony, peace of mind, self control, etc. is drilled into people’s heads? I agree with you that these things are taught in martial arts, but I think you’re missing the purpose behind their teachings in that those teachings are there to make you a more effective fighter.

If you observe advanced warrior cultures throughout the world, creating the perfect fighter often involved being selective, educating them, giving them a code of conduct, and then teaching them how to brutally murder other human beings. It’s all part of the total package, However, just because we put them in fancy clothes, primp their hair, and give them a huge vocabulary, it doesn’t change the fact that we’re talking about a corp of professional killers. That is the history of our martial arts systems, and why things are done the way they are.



isshinryuronin said:


> By your view, such a senior citizen or handicapped person would be wasting their time training in MA.



Nah;













isshinryuronin said:


> So, to sum up, in my view of MA, _your quoted statement is 90% true._  But by dismissing that other quantitative 10%, the qualitative loss is much more.



Well, I’ll take 90% agreement anytime.


----------



## Hanzou

_Simon_ said:


> Sorry. If improving stamina is in your martial art then you're not doing a martial art because it's not fighting. It's basically kata.
> 
> (I am 100% being facetious here, but maybe not  )



You ever do rolling in Bjj? It’s like running with a heavy gi while someone is on your back trying to strangle you. I almost had a heart attack the first time I did it, and I used to compete in kata comps in my karate days.


----------



## _Simon_

Hanzou said:


> You ever do rolling in Bjj? It’s like running with a heavy gi while someone is on your back trying to strangle you. I almost had a heart attack the first time I did it, and I used to compete in kata comps in my karate days.


Yeah I was more joking and making an extremist point about the definitions discussion of what makes a martial art a martial art, with a touch of cheekiness


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> Ok. But let's also discuss this in terms of understanding. There is no way you will understand the nuance of technique by drilling alone. You don't understand how to flow properly or get proper timing or even how to cope with loss or failure, how to deal with things like ego. Even how to make a technique that is someone else's, a technique that is yours. You may not even understand that these elements are vital to create a depth of understanding as to what you are doing.
> 
> Almost whatever they are trying to accomplish a good competitive guy will understand it better.
> 
> You have to experiment with the process to understand it better than the guy who taught it to you.
> 
> So we look at ippon seonagi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this does not show a great understanding of the move or the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we see a completely different animal.


The guy demonstrating the fundamentals of ippon seoi nage in the first clip is Mike Swain, a Judo world champion and 5 time Olympian. I guarantee he has a great understanding of both  the move and the concept.

The thing about Judo throws is that you have to learn the basic body mechanics first before you get into the complex, sometimes messy looking variations that come out against resisting opponents at the highest level of competition. In that first clip, Swain is just teaching those fundamental body mechanics. He definitely knows and has executed those crazy looking tournament variations. (I’m also willing to bet that against someone like you or me he could probably pull off the throw in a manner that looks like the textbook fundamental version. )


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I'll be honest in that I've been skimming this thread, and this part stuck out to me for some reason. Gpseymour has said a bunch of times that he doesn't think aikido is a good art for self-defense alone, or for fighting alone. What he's said is that people should start with other arts, and then add aikido once they're capable of self-defense/fighting as it then adds something extra, and that's what he believes its purpose is.
> 
> That might be why this stuck out to me actually-it's such a unique position for a teacher of any art to have, that their art only really works after you've learned another. Hopefully, I A) got his position correct, and B) explained it right.


Well, the other thing that you missed (and so have Steve and drop bear despite it being explained multiple times), is that Gerry doesn’t teach or practice Aikido. He does Nikon Goshin Aikido, which despite the name is not directly related to Ueshiba’s art. It’s a modern eclectic art of the sort which normally gets named some form of jujutsu - a blend of Daito-ryu, Judo, and Karate. It’s the same sort of beast as Danzan Ryu Jujutsu or Shingitai Jujutsu  except that the founder chose ”aikido” as part of the name instead of “jujutsu”. He’s also explained that his art includes sparring and that the Judo/Karate components of the arts are what tend to come out functionally in sparring more so than the Daito-Ryu elements.

When Gerry comments on “Aikido”, he’s talking about Ueshiba’s art from an outsider’s perspective, just like most people in this thread. When he refers to his own training, he’s talking about NGA (which in my opinion would be less confusing if it was NGJJ).

 I have no particular opinion regarding the quality of NGA as an art. The video clips I’ve seen are on a par with the average modern hybrid jujutsu systems. The one time I met Gerry in person we were in a time crunch and he ended up picking my brain without my having the opportunity to pick his in return. However I do find it a bit irritating when discussions of Aikido (the art founded by Morihei Ueshiba) come up and both Steve and drop bear talk to Gerry as if he were a practitioner of that art and essentially call him a liar when he clarifies that his training is different.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> Having an unbiased view of new techniques doesn't mean you have to give credence to all techniques.
> 
> If you applied just basic Critical thinking to martial arts then you are open to being swayed by evidence.
> 
> It is not a case where you just accept any old thing.


Except I wasn’t talking about techniques at all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I've never actually noticed you saying that aikido doesn't teach people any practical fighting skills. I recall you saying you teach people things you think will help them in a fight, and you use the phrase "self defense focus", which honestly, I don't get. At best, you seem to have no trouble reconciling mutually exclusive statements. Maybe someday, you'll be able to explain that to me in a way that makes sense.


You seem to be confused by the names of the arts. Nihon Goshin Aikido is not the same art as Aikido. Aikido actually manages to be an ambiguous term, because it is also the proper term for the group of arts which Ueshiba's Aikido belongs to. It'd be a lot like if one of the earliest forms of Karate (and the most well-known) was formally named "Karate", while all others have a modifier (e.g. Shotokan Karate).

What I know of Aikido (the art, not the group of arts) suggests it (as commonly taught) lacks a foundation. Folks with experience in other grappling arts have that foundation and are better able to leverage the principles. So what's taught in Aikido can be useful for fighting, if you have a foundation to use it with.

There are folks who disagree with me on this view, in both directions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> If you’re talking about verbal skills to diffuse conflict, that is part of someone’s fighting ability as well. Imposing your will onto someone isn’t always physical, oftentimes it is mental. In Bjj it’s considered an aspect of “invisible Jiujitsu”, along the same lines of temperament, awareness, and confidence. Obviously other MAs call it something else entirely, but it is still an aspect of your ability to resolve conflict. It is training to make you a more calm and collective fighter/warrior/whatever.


Okay, this is another place where we seem to be running into defintion issues. When I speak of "fighting", I'm talking about what I think drop bear would refer to as physically imposing your will on someone. If you're including this in your definition, I agree with what you're saying here. I think we can all agree that verbal Judo (take that, Jitser!!) is useful for self-protection and a lot of other areas of life.

I'll also clarify that when I'm helping folks with their communication skills, it's not necessarily about diffusing conflict (though that sometimes comes up). It's more about general communication, like how to ask a good question. Why? Because I strongly suspect they'll get more life benefit from improving in that area than any ability to fight, as most folks will never actually need the physical fighting skills.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Wing Woo Gar said:


> The general tone sounds somewhat hostile, so I thought I would ask rather than assume.


Hanzou can be direct and emphatic. I don't recall ever seeing a hostile post, though. Even when we disagree vehemently and completely, Hanzou's pretty easy to talk to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I'll be honest in that I've been skimming this thread, and this part stuck out to me for some reason. Gpseymour has said a bunch of times that he doesn't think aikido is a good art for self-defense alone, or for fighting alone. What he's said is that people should start with other arts, and then add aikido once they're capable of self-defense/fighting as it then adds something extra, and that's what he believes its purpose is.
> 
> That might be why this stuck out to me actually-it's such a unique position for a teacher of any art to have, that their art only really works after you've learned another. Hopefully, I A) got his position correct, and B) explained it right.


You definitely have the position right. You've confused two arts (understandably - the naming is maddeningly confusing to most people). What I teach is a cousin-art to Aikido, with the foundation being the same (Daito-ryu), with heavy influence from Judo and Karate (allegedly Shotokan, but I suspect a healthy amount of Goju). 

I think NGA can suffer the same way Aikido does, if trained too similarly. While we have strikes, but there are schools that only teach and test them statically (some without even a heavy bag, several without sparring). I tend the opposite direction - I see the striking approach as being necessary to the functioning of the art. My students learn to spar before they experience their first NGA "classical technique". That's part of the kind of foundation I feel Aikido lacks - a delivery system for the movement and principles they train.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> The guy demonstrating the fundamentals of ippon seoi nage in the first clip is Mike Swain, a Judo world champion and 5 time Olympian. I guarantee he has a great understanding of both  the move and the concept.
> 
> The thing about Judo throws is that you have to learn the basic body mechanics first before you get into the complex, sometimes messy looking variations that come out against resisting opponents at the highest level of competition. In that first clip, Swain is just teaching those fundamental body mechanics. He definitely knows and has executed those crazy looking tournament variations. (I’m also willing to bet that against someone like you or me he could probably pull off the throw in a manner that looks like the textbook fundamental version. )



Yeah. That is why I went for a sneaky "does not show a great understanding" rather than does not have. 

The comment was supposed to focus on the technique not the person. 

And he is only showing half the story with that throw.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> I have no particular opinion regarding the quality of NGA as an art. The video clips I’ve seen are on a par with the average modern hybrid jujutsu systems.


If that's all you've seen, ,you've missed some spectacularly bad stuff, Tony.   

But, yes, most of what's out there has much the same feel as the other modern hybrid jujutsus. And it's prone to a lot of the same problems when not trained with resistance, and the same overstatement of its effectiveness against, for instance, knives.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. That is why I went for a sneaky "does not show a great understanding" rather than does not have.
> 
> The comment was supposed to focus on the technique not the person.
> 
> And he is only showing half the story with that throw.


That's pretty common in JMA approach to teaching, as I've seen it. Just enough is shared to get the technique working in the initial drill and get the basic movement, then that foundation is built upon. (Though I see plenty of examples where apparently there was no further building.)


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's pretty common in JMA approach to teaching, as I've seen it. Just enough is shared to get the technique working in the initial drill and get the basic movement, then that foundation is built upon. (Though I see plenty of examples where apparently there was no further building.)



Yeah. I drill a similar throw in a similar fashion to teach breakfalls. Because it is more controlled than the live versions. 

So in a different context I see your point.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

gpseymour said:


> You definitely have the position right. You've confused two arts (understandably - the naming is maddeningly confusing to most people). What I teach is a cousin-art to Aikido, with the foundation being the same (Daito-ryu), with heavy influence from Judo and Karate (allegedly Shotokan, but I suspect a healthy amount of Goju).
> 
> I think NGA can suffer the same way Aikido does, if trained too similarly. While we have strikes, but there are schools that only teach and test them statically (some without even a heavy bag, several without sparring). I tend the opposite direction - I see the striking approach as being necessary to the functioning of the art. My students learn to spar before they experience their first NGA "classical technique". That's part of the kind of foundation I feel Aikido lacks - a delivery system for the movement and principles they train.


Yeah, in my head I always equate your art with traditional Aikido because of the name. If I'm not actively thinking about it, I forget that it's a separate thing


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Yeah, in my head I always equate your art with traditional Aikido because of the name. If I'm not actively thinking about it, I forget that it's a separate thing


At least one ranking NGA instructor has forgotten that, too.


----------



## drop bear

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Except I wasn’t talking about techniques at all.



Critical thinking can apply to styles, systems, ideas or even people. 

It is not reliant on it being just about techniques.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Hanzou said:


> As I often say, things like pro Bjj and especially MMA keep the art "honest", and doesn't allow it to fall into looney territory. Unfortunately there are a host of other MAs who don't have those safety nets.


I agree.  _But sport competition is not the only way to "keep the art honest."_ There were karate experts way before it was even imagined as sport that I am sure would give any modern kick boxer or karate champ more then they could handle.

We do not train for sport at my dojo.  We train to do damage to our opponent, not score points.  We do kata to develop basic skills and principles, as well as those movements that are practical in a modern fight. (I will admit some kata moves are not practical nowadays, but there is more to them than most people realize.)

Most of our training involves grabs, arm breaks, knee breaks, elbows, other assorted strikes and a few kicks to low targets.  KISS.  We strike (and "block") in a way to inflict additional pain and damage.  We work on maintaining control from the start to limit/eliminate counter attacks.  Two man drills while padded up allows us to actually hit and get realism.  And most important of all is the mental attitude that is developed that a street fight these days is definitely NOT SPORT.

A modern respected karate "Grand" Master has said, "True karate can never be sport."  If one understands what this means, they will understand sport is not the only way to train for effective fighting.  But minus the type of training I've outlined above, competitive sparring is better than no sparring.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> Yeah. That is why I went for a sneaky "does not show a great understanding" rather than does not have.
> 
> The comment was supposed to focus on the technique not the person.
> 
> And he is only showing half the story with that throw.


Possibly less than half the story, but it's an important, necessary part of the story - the first few chapters of the book, if you will. If you try to throw students into the advanced tournament variations without that foundation, then they are going to be lost. Sort of like starting a novel in the middle with no idea of who the characters are or why they are in the situations they are.

Judo in general is like that. The basic versions of the throws which are taught pretty similarly in dojos around the globe are typically not the versions that you see commonly executed in high level competition. Rather they're the versions which mostly clearly and simply illustrate the fundamental body mechanics and concepts underlying the throw.

That's not to say the basic versions can't work. I got caught by a beautiful ippon seoi nage in sparring the other week. It was off of an unexpected setup, but the execution was pretty much the classic form shown by Mike Swain in that video. (Of course, I'm not an elite judo competitor, so the advanced variations weren't necessary to score on me.)


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> If that's all you've seen, ,you've missed some spectacularly bad stuff, Tony.
> 
> But, yes, most of what's out there has much the same feel as the other modern hybrid jujutsus. And it's prone to a lot of the same problems when not trained with resistance, and the same overstatement of its effectiveness against, for instance, knives.


Well, I have seen some spectacularly bad stuff in many of the modern hybrid jujutsu systems. Also some pretty good stuff and some mediocre stuff. That's part of what usually gives me a clue as to how much pressure testing they do - the proportion of solid movement to crap.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

gpseymour said:


> Hanzou can be direct and emphatic. I don't recall ever seeing a hostile post, though. Even when we disagree vehemently and completely, Hanzou's pretty easy to talk to.


That’s why I asked. I’m not offended. I do like to get a feel for people. I don’t want to judge on text.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> Critical thinking can apply to styles, systems, ideas or even people.
> 
> It is not reliant on it being just about techniques.


Patronizing won’t make you any points here.


----------



## Cynik75

Competition is like mirror: allows too see real fighting skills level and what should be improved. And what is very important the level of opponents grows up what forces constant improvement.
Non competitive MAs have not this kind of verification and even if sometimes the skills level is tested "on da streetz madafaka no rules" the test are very rare (if are at all) and the level of opponents is very low - there is no need to improve more than necessary to defeat average Joe.
It makes the sportmen are much much better in sport than "street real fighers" in real fighers. And because of huge overlap between full contact sports and "street fighting" full contact  sportmen performs better in street encounters than "real life fighters".


----------



## Hanzou

isshinryuronin said:


> I agree.  _But sport competition is not the only way to "keep the art honest."_ There were karate experts way before it was even imagined as sport that I am sure would give any modern kick boxer or karate champ more then they could handle.



The key word here is "were". It should also be noted that karate experts of old didn't shy away from exhibition or public fights, and even criticized other karate masters who shied away from fighting. Motobu Choki and his attitude towards Funakoshi being a prime example.


isshinryuronin said:


> We do not train for sport at my dojo.  We train to do damage to our opponent, not score points.  We do kata to develop basic skills and principles, as well as those movements that are practical in a modern fight. (I will admit some kata moves are not practical nowadays, but there is more to them than most people realize.)



You may be surprised to hear that we do the exact same thing in BJJ (minus the kata), yet we still find time to train for competition as well. Interestingly, the guys who compete tend to end up with a higher degree technical skill than those who do not.



isshinryuronin said:


> Most of our training involves grabs, arm breaks, knee breaks, elbows, other assorted strikes and a few kicks to low targets.  KISS.  We strike (and "block") in a way to inflict additional pain and damage.  We work on maintaining control from the start to limit/eliminate counter attacks.  Two man drills while padded up allows us to actually hit and get realism.  And most important of all is the mental attitude that is developed that a street fight these days is definitely NOT SPORT.



Yeah, but is that Isshin-Ryu striking on Isshin-Ryu striking? Is that sparring or drilling? How much innovation and alteration is allowed in your drills/sparring? After a certain point, style on style drilling begins to dull the overall system, and it begins to fall behind.

One of the reasons I said that MMA keeps BJJ honest is because MMA constantly evolves, thus forcing BJJ to evolve with it since BJJ is the core submission grappling art of MMA. Within that, you have BJJ being constantly exposed to modern fighting systems like Boxing, Wrestling, Combat Sambo, street fighting, etc. In addition to that, non-MMA BJJ is very open to wrestlers which also bring a lot of innovation to BJJ itself, and that keeps the art "honest" and constantly evolving.

One example of this was the recent Catch vs BJJ bout that took place between the CACC "champion" Curran Jacobs and random 10th Planet BJJ blackbelt Quentin Rosenzweig;






Why is this important? Simple; BJJ exponents have incorporated elements of Catch into their game, and then evolved beyond that to elevate both the sport and the art to levels where catch simply cannot keep up. BJJ has the added benefit of far more practitioners and a far more open culture of innovation. Catch on the other hand is working from a handicap in that they're working with far less practitioners and are actively avoiding incorporating BJJ into their system because (above all else) they want to be a separate system from BJJ. So the results speak for itself. Considering that Jacobs was supposedly the top catch guy around and he got easily beaten by an unranked Jitz guy was quite an upset for the CACC community.




isshinryuronin said:


> A modern respected karate "Grand" Master has said, "True karate can never be sport."  If one understands what this means, they will understand sport is not the only way to train for effective fighting.  But minus the type of training I've outlined above, competitive sparring is better than no sparring.



He's welcome to his opinion, but effective fighting is evolving constantly. If you're still doing one steps from the 19th century, you're well behind the 8-ball. Judo understood this, which is why Jigaro Kano in all of his genius incorporated modern *sport *wrestling and grappling into his modern Judo system, and then proceeded to replace classical Japanese martial arts with more modern systems.  Why? Because Kano understood that the toughest fighters around were modern wrestlers and boxers and they were handily beating experts from classical MA systems. 

Given that over a century later, a lanky Brazilian using a modified version of Kano's system forever changed the course of martial arts in a NHB event kind of speaks for itself.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Hanzou said:


> same thing in BJJ (minus the kata), yet we still find time to train for competition as well. Interestingly, the guys who compete tend to end up with a higher degree technical skill than those who do not.


I would think that most of BJJ's serious students are in it for competition, so logical they would be the harder workers and become more skillful.  Your statement's logic is skewed towards your preset conclusion.


Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but is that Isshin-Ryu striking on Isshin-Ryu striking? Is that sparring or drilling?


There is no "style" involved in these drills.  They are not forms.  They are normal attacks:  jabs, crosses, grabs, basic kicks...  We work on flow and adjusting to changing dynamics during the attack.  It's definitely not sparring since that implies "give and take."  We stress the giving and avoid the taking.  Three, four, five moves and it's over.  That's the goal.  Finish ASAP.


Hanzou said:


> Jigaro Kano in all of his genius incorporated modern *sport *wrestling and grappling into his modern Judo system, and then proceeded to replace classical Japanese martial arts with more modern systems. Why?


You are looking at all things thru the filter of BJJ and have some built in bias in the formatting of your statements.  Kano was a force, but not the patron saint of all martial arts as you paint him.  There were many influences on Japanese MA during the early 1900's, historical and political.  

Kano looked to *sport* wrestling as he was developing a competitive sport*!!* Kano was an educator and from the get-go his judo was designed to be taught in the schools. I have no idea what modern systems relaced what classical Japanese MA you are talking about, so your "Why?" (as many of your suppositions) is moot.


----------



## Hanzou

isshinryuronin said:


> I would think that most of BJJ's serious students are in it for competition, so logical they would be the harder workers and become more skillful.  Your statement's logic is skewed towards your preset conclusion.



Well they’re also training harder and more often. The point is that this creates an elite level of Bjj practitioners. Which creates situations like this;










Where a guy can run through an entire gym of practitioners.


isshinryuronin said:


> There is no "style" involved in these drills.  They are not forms.  They are normal attacks:  jabs, crosses, grabs, basic kicks...  We work on flow and adjusting to changing dynamics during the attack.  It's definitely not sparring since that implies "give and take."  We stress the giving and avoid the taking.  Three, four, five moves and it's over.  That's the goal.  Finish ASAP.



Okay, are you bringing in boxers or MMA guys to fight/spar with? If not, why not? What’s the philosophy behind that?



isshinryuronin said:


> You are looking at all things thru the filter of BJJ and have some built in bias in the formatting of your statements.  Kano was a force, but not the patron saint of all martial arts as you paint him.  There were many influences on Japanese MA during the early 1900's, historical and political.



Well for starters I’ll never say that I don’t carry biases, I’m only human. I never said that Kano was the patron saint of ALL martial arts, however, he started a revolution in Asian martial arts that still influence the vast majority of MAs to this day. Even our uniforms and belt systems come from Judo. For example, Gichin Funakoshi the "father of modern Karate" adopted Kano's grading system for Shotokan, and that in turn influenced pretty much all forms of karate to adopt the system as well. So yeah, I wouldn't put him down as the patron saint, but it's safe to say that we owe a great deal of our modern systems of MA to Kano, especially if we practice a style of MA descended from Japan.




isshinryuronin said:


> Kano looked to *sport* wrestling as he was developing a competitive sport*!!* Kano was an educator and from the get-go his judo was designed to be taught in the schools. I have no idea what modern systems relaced what classical Japanese MA you are talking about, so your "Why?" (as many of your suppositions) is moot.



I told you what modern system replaced classical Japanese MA; Judo. The "why" is simple, though rhetorical; Kano adopted those techniques and concepts from western sports because they were effective.

But back to the main point; Early in your original post, you stated that there WERE Karate experts from back in the day that could hand modern Kickboxers and sport fighters their rear-ends. What about now though? Are you saying that Isshin-Ryu karatekas haven't improved in the last century or so of the art's existence? In BJJ, the top guys are WAY better than the Gracies were, which shows that the art as a whole is improving with each successive generation. Why is that not the case in karate? Could it be that the lack of sparring, competition, open experimentation, and a strong adherence to tradition has stagnated the style?


----------



## isshinryuronin

Hanzou said:


> , Gichin Funakoshi the "father of modern Karate" adopted Kano's grading system for Shotokan, and that in turn influenced pretty much all forms of karate to adopt the system as well.


Yes, but this has nothing to do with the art itself.  It only changed how ranks were given and how the public school program was structured.  Funakoshi, like Kano, was a teacher, and schools have grades and lesson plans.  Okinawa was slow to adopt Kano's ranking (and gi as well), doing so only because of pressure from the "mainland" and for the sake of harmony in Japan's growing nationalistic climate.


Hanzou said:


> I told you what modern system replaced classical Japanese MA; Judo.


Judo replaced Kyudo, kobudo, karate, jujutsu????  Well, yes, jujutsu to a degree, but only in the sport context.


Hanzou said:


> But back to the main point; Early in your original post, you stated that there WERE Karate experts from back in the day that could hand modern Kickboxers and sport fighters their rear-ends. What about now though? Are you saying that Isshin-Ryu karatekas haven't improved in the last century or so of the art's existence? In BJJ, the top guys are WAY better than the Gracies were, which shows that the art as a whole is improving with each successive generation. Why is that not the case in karate?


Keep in mind that BJJ is an "infant" art, and still developing as you said.  Karate has over 200 hundred years of development, so perhaps is a more "matured" art, having _already_ undergone constant development for many successive generations. 

Contrary to what you assert, karate _has_ changed in the last hundred years or so. Most of today's styles evolved during the last century.  My style's founder made several changes that met much resistance from the karate community, but I think were for the best.  He was one of the first masters to utilize body armour to allow full contact sparring, and modified several techniques to make them faster and do more damage. So your last sentence in the above quote is not quite accurate. Again, you are assuming facts that bolster your position.

Since Ali, how much has boxing changed?  Not much, although it changed a lot and more often 150-90 years ago when it was a less matured art.  The different arts all have their own timeline of development and maturation.  Kids change more than adults.  It can be said that competition can hinder development by rules which only allow certain things, so the sport is confined by those rules. Sure, rules can be changed - but it is another viewpoint that can be considered. Multiple factors are involved so broad statements can have inaccuracies.  

I'm not saying you're wrong in much of what you are posting.  Just that you are a bit too focused onto your position and neglecting (or uninformed of) other aspects and facts of the big picture.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Where a guy can run through an entire gym of practitioners.



It is also a very hard environment to pretend you have the same ability as those guys.


----------



## Hanzou

isshinryuronin said:


> Yes, but this has nothing to do with the art itself.  It only changed how ranks were given and how the public school program was structured.  Funakoshi, like Kano, was a teacher, and schools have grades and lesson plans.  Okinawa was slow to adopt Kano's ranking (and gi as well), doing so only because of pressure from the "mainland" and for the sake of harmony in Japan's growing nationalistic climate.



Karate was systemized. New kata were structured. Old kata were reorganized and altered. New methodologies were developed to coincide with the new ranking system. New terminologies were given to make Karate more appealing to a Japanese audience. etc. etc. etc.

And that's entirely thanks to Jigaro Kano.


isshinryuronin said:


> Judo replaced Kyudo, kobudo, karate, jujutsu????  Well, yes, jujutsu to a degree, but only in the sport context.



Nope, in its entirety. Judo was utilized by police departments and the military throughout the
Imperial era of Japan.



isshinryuronin said:


> Keep in mind that BJJ is an "infant" art, and still developing as you said.  Karate has over 200 hundred years of development, so perhaps is a more "matured" art, having _already_ undergone constant development for many successive generations.



Actually BJJ is older than Isshin Ryu. I do believe that Isshin-Ryu was created in the 1950s, while BJJ was created around 1914, also making it older than Shotokan Karate, the first modern karate style.

I would hardly consider a martial art that's over a hundred years old to be an "infant art".



isshinryuronin said:


> Contrary to what you assert, karate _has_ changed in the last hundred years or so. Most of today's styles evolved during the last century.  My style's founder made several changes that met much resistance from the karate community, but I think were for the best.  He was one of the first masters to utilize body armour to allow full contact sparring, and modified several techniques to make them faster and do more damage. So your last sentence in the above quote is not quite accurate. Again, you are assuming facts that bolster your position.



Yeah, but that was almost 70 years ago. What has changed since that time?



isshinryuronin said:


> Since Ali, how much has boxing changed?  Not much, although it changed a lot and more often 150-90 years ago when it was a less matured art.  The different arts all have their own timeline of development and maturation.  Kids change more than adults.  It can be said that competition can hinder development by rules which only allow certain things, so the sport is confined by those rules. Sure, rules can be changed - but it is another viewpoint that can be considered. Multiple factors are involved so broad statements can have inaccuracies.



That depends on which style of boxing you're talking about. There's 4 of them, and all 4 of them are fluid depending on the boxer utilizing it. For example, despite both being heavyweights, Tyson and Ali have two very different boxing styles.


isshinryuronin said:


> I'm not saying you're wrong in much of what you are posting.  Just that you are a bit too focused onto your position and neglecting (or uninformed of) other aspects and facts of the big picture.



I'm simply curious of how a style that exists in a closed environment can continue to evolve in an ever changing martial arts environment. Like, all you're practicing against is Isshin-Ryu, and based on what you've said, you guys don't actually spar.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Hanzou said:


> New terminologies were given to make Karate more appealing to a Japanese audience. etc. etc. etc.
> 
> And that's entirely thanks to Jigaro Kano.



Not entirely.  More like he was the nail in the coffin.

The war to remove Chinese ideas from Karate took a long time.  

And it failed anyway, because of kaizen.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Hanzou said:


> Karate was systemized. New kata were structured. Old kata were reorganized and altered. New methodologies were developed to coincide with the new ranking system. New terminologies were given to make Karate more appealing to a Japanese audience. etc. etc. etc.
> 
> And that's entirely thanks to Jigaro Kano.
> 
> 
> Nope, in its entirety. Judo was utilized by police departments and the military throughout the
> Imperial era of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually BJJ is older than Isshin Ryu. I do believe that Isshin-Ryu was created in the 1950s, while BJJ was created around 1914, also making it older than Shotokan Karate, the first modern karate style.
> 
> I would hardly consider a martial art that's over a hundred years old to be an "infant art".
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but that was almost 70 years ago. What has changed since that time?
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on which style of boxing you're talking about. There's 4 of them, and all 4 of them are fluid depending on the boxer utilizing it. For example, despite both being heavyweights, Tyson and Ali have two very different boxing styles.
> 
> 
> I'm simply curious of how a style that exists in a closed environment can continue to evolve in an ever changing martial arts environment. Like, all you're practicing against is Isshin-Ryu, and based on what you've said, you guys don't actually spar.


Yes.  BJJ is the ultimate martial art.


----------



## Hanzou

Oily Dragon said:


> Not entirely.  More like he was the nail in the coffin.
> 
> The war to remove Chinese ideas from Karate took a long time.
> 
> And it failed anyway, because of kaizen.



Are you implying that the Japanification of Okinawan karate somehow made it weaker?

I would say that Kyokushin Karate disproves that notion rather thoroughly.


----------



## Hanzou

isshinryuronin said:


> Yes.  BJJ is the ultimate martial art.



Interesting that you believe that, since I don't. 

In the end, I'm merely pointing out how sports and competition can benefit a style. BJJ developed within a history of challenge matches, NHB competitions, and street fights, so yeah it has a culture of its exponents constantly looking for a way to have an advantage over their peers. That has resulted in an overall better system that improves upon itself over time.

Obviously competition can have its downsides as well. Judo's current situation is a very good example of that where the art loses its overall effectiveness in order to achieve a "standard" that is believed to be the true essence of the art and the original intent of its founder. However, that same mindset can emerge in styles that do not compete, and cause stagnation and a loss of overall effectiveness. 

Which again illuminates my point on MMA and BJJ's codependent relationship and how it keeps the latter "honest". We can never go too far off the pasture in BJJ because MMA depends on BJJ for its submission grappling element. So no matter what, we have to show up in MMA gyms and get punched in the face and brought back to reality. However, in turn we get the benefit of learning how to deal with boxers, wrestlers, kickboxers and street fighters as various forms of martial arts get mixed into the MMA stew.


----------



## Steve

isshinryuronin said:


> Yes.  BJJ is the ultimate martial art.


Well, compared to some infant arts like Isshin Ryu Karate, it may seem so.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Hanzou said:


> based on what you've said, you guys don't actually spar.


Hmmm, I wonder why I've had these knuckle prints on my ribcage for the past two weeks?  As I mentioned, we don't sport/competitely spar in the manner of "fencing", going back and forth for a few minutes.  We just go forth for a few seconds.  This is unique to our particular school's method of training (see next quote).

I had my share of sport sparring throughout the entire 1970's.  We still do sparring on belt tests, not to _primarily _judge on points, but to observe tactics, use of angles, entering strategies, checking and fighting spirit. Many "points" scored in modern tournament sparring would not be effective in actual combat, and many techniques that would be effective in combat are illegal in competition.


Steve said:


> Well, compared to some infant arts like Isshin Ryu Karate, it may seem so.


You should know, the ART is Okinawan karate, Isshinryu is simply a style, a "flavor" of the art.  The various Okinawan styles are 90% the same.  What is most important is HOW these styles are taught by the instructor - how to deliver the goods to the opponent in the most effective way possible.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> Interesting that you believe that, since I don't.
> 
> In the end, I'm merely pointing out how sports and competition can benefit a style. BJJ developed within a history of challenge matches, NHB competitions, and street fights, so yeah it has a culture of its exponents constantly looking for a way to have an advantage over their peers. That has resulted in an overall better system that improves upon itself over time.
> 
> Obviously competition can have its downsides as well. Judo's current situation is a very good example of that where the art loses its overall effectiveness in order to achieve a "standard" that is believed to be the true essence of the art and the original intent of its founder. However, that same mindset can emerge in styles that do not compete, and cause stagnation and a loss of overall effectiveness.
> 
> Which again illuminates my point on MMA and BJJ's codependent relationship and how it keeps the latter "honest". We can never go too far off the pasture in BJJ because MMA depends on BJJ for its submission grappling element. So no matter what, we have to show up in MMA gyms and get punched in the face and brought back to reality. However, in turn we get the benefit of learning how to deal with boxers, wrestlers, kickboxers and street fighters as various forms of martial arts get mixed into the MMA stew.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

I have to ask this question, do you believe that current mma favors grapplers? Bouncy padded floor, gloves, certain strikes are not allowed etc.  I do realize that we don’t want people getting killed and maimed in the ring, but do you think that the equipment and rules make any difference? It certainly seems it is not the same as a street fight, but I wonder how much the two really translate to each other? I mean shooting for legs on asphalt or boot scooting in gravel seems a tad more difficult.  its an honest question. Everybody should put their two cents in.


----------



## Steve

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I have to ask this question, do you believe that current mma favors grapplers? Bouncy padded floor, gloves, certain strikes are not allowed etc.  I do realize that we don’t want people getting killed and maimed in the ring, but do you think that the equipment and rules make any difference? It certainly seems it is not the same as a street fight, but I wonder how much the two really translate to each other? I mean shooting for legs on asphalt or boot scooting in gravel seems a tad more difficult.  its an honest question. Everybody should put their two cents in.


It's actually the opposite, I think.  Kind of a mixed bag, where some rules definitely keep grapplers safer.  Overall, though, the net result is a pro-striking MMA rules are, in my opinion, much more favorable to striking than grappling.


----------



## drop bear

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I have to ask this question, do you believe that current mma favors grapplers? Bouncy padded floor, gloves, certain strikes are not allowed etc.  I do realize that we don’t want people getting killed and maimed in the ring, but do you think that the equipment and rules make any difference? It certainly seems it is not the same as a street fight, but I wonder how much the two really translate to each other? I mean shooting for legs on asphalt or boot scooting in gravel seems a tad more difficult.  its an honest question. Everybody should put their two cents in.



Not really.

The gloves make striking easier than say boxing. 

The cage wall favors grappling. 

The floor would be a toss up. You can drop knee to take down a bit safer. But you don't die when someone does that to you. 

Time limits favor stand up. 

The stand up rule favors stand up.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Not really.
> 
> The gloves make striking easier than say boxing.
> 
> The cage wall favors grappling.
> 
> The floor would be a toss up. You can drop knee to take down a bit safer. But you don't die when someone does that to you.
> 
> Time limits favor stand up.
> 
> The stand up rule favors stand up.


The lack of grips and general sweatiness favor strikers.  Lack of footwear, too... shoes are great for heel hooks.


----------



## Hanzou

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I have to ask this question, do you believe that current mma favors grapplers? Bouncy padded floor, gloves, certain strikes are not allowed etc.  I do realize that we don’t want people getting killed and maimed in the ring, but do you think that the equipment and rules make any difference? It certainly seems it is not the same as a street fight, but I wonder how much the two really translate to each other? I mean shooting for legs on asphalt or boot scooting in gravel seems a tad more difficult.  its an honest question. Everybody should put their two cents in.



Considering a friend of mine got his collar-bone dislocated from being slammed on that "bouncy padded floor", I would say no. This is a common excuse that popped up after the first UFCs because "strikers" didn't like how they performed overall. Grapplers don't have an advantage because of rules, equipment, set-up, etc. Grapplers have an advantage period because of how they train, and how grappling works. 

A striker has to knock out or disable the grappler quickly, and they have very limited opportunities to do so. If a wrestler is coming in for a DLT and the striker screws up and doesn't stop the shoot, it's pretty much over. Grapplers on the other hand have multiple opportunities, and can actually set up strikers to throw a strike that will more easily open them up for a takedown. BTW, this isn't to say that a striker can't knock out a person moving in for a takedown, I'm saying that a grappler has a higher chance of accomplishing that takedown than the striker has of knocking them unconscious.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> It's actually the opposite, I think.  Kind of a mixed bag, where some rules definitely keep grapplers safer.  Overall, though, the net result is a pro-striking MMA rules are, in my opinion, much more favorable to striking than grappling.


Ok why? Give some examples please.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> Not really.
> 
> The gloves make striking easier than say boxing.
> 
> The cage wall favors grappling.
> 
> The floor would be a toss up. You can drop knee to take down a bit safer. But you don't die when someone does that to you.
> 
> Time limits favor stand up.
> 
> The stand up rule favors stand up.


Ok thanks!


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> Considering a friend of mine got his collar-bone dislocated from being slammed on that "bouncy padded floor", I would say no. This is a common excuse that popped up after the first UFCs because "strikers" didn't like how they performed overall. Grapplers don't have an advantage because of rules, equipment, set-up, etc. Grapplers have an advantage period because of how they train, and how grappling works.
> 
> A striker has to knock out or disable the grappler quickly, and they have very limited opportunities to do so. If a wrestler is coming in for a DLT and the striker screws up and doesn't stop the shoot, it's pretty much over. Grapplers on the other hand have multiple opportunities, and can actually set up strikers to throw a strike that will more easily open them up for a takedown. BTW, this isn't to say that a striker can't knock out a person moving in for a takedown, I'm saying that a grappler has a higher chance of accomplishing that takedown than the striker has of knocking them unconscious.


So that sounds like you say it’s a toss up?


----------



## Hanzou

Wing Woo Gar said:


> So that sounds like you say it’s a toss up?



That’s correct. It comes down to the skill of the fighter.

What always puzzled me is why we don’t see traditional styles like the hundreds of Chinese Kung Fu styles, Classical Japanese Jujutsu, or more traditional karate styles in MMA? Since they’re supposedly complete systems, they shouldn’t even need to cross train,


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> That’s correct. It comes down to the skill of the fighter.
> 
> What always puzzled me is why we don’t see traditional styles like the hundreds of Chinese Kung Fu styles, Classical Japanese Jujutsu, or more traditional karate styles in MMA? Since they’re supposedly complete systems, they shouldn’t even need to cross train,


I think a lot of it comes down to efficiency for the context, if nothing else. Being competitive in something like MMA means developing skill as fast as (or faster than) the next guy. Systems that are designed for a plodding approach don’t convert well.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I think a lot of it comes down to efficiency for the context, if nothing else. Being competitive in something like MMA means developing skill as fast as (or faster than) the next guy. Systems that are designed for a plodding approach don’t convert well.



Now that is interesting. So you believe that systems that teach relevant skills more quickly are better suited to the MMA/NHB environment than systems that require more dedication? 

It is interesting that nearly all of the arts that form the basis of MMA don't contain kata training.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Hanzou said:


> Are you implying that the Japanification of Okinawan karate somehow made it weaker?
> 
> I would say that Kyokushin Karate disproves that notion rather thoroughly.


_"Nail in the coffin". _ Ponder that on the Tree of Woe.


----------



## Alan0354

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I have to ask this question, do you believe that current mma favors grapplers? Bouncy padded floor, gloves, certain strikes are not allowed etc.  I do realize that we don’t want people getting killed and maimed in the ring, but do you think that the equipment and rules make any difference? It certainly seems it is not the same as a street fight, but I wonder how much the two really translate to each other? I mean shooting for legs on asphalt or boot scooting in gravel seems a tad more difficult.  its an honest question. Everybody should put their two cents in.


Not just that, the whole system favors grapplers. Think of this, typically when grappler first shoot, they wrap their hands around your body. The head is right there. BUT rules do NOT allow you to hit the back of the head, you have to hit in certain way that is a big disadvantage to strikers. Just think if you are allowed to elbow to the back of the head, it will be a big game changer. Pushing the striker against the fence and work to pull the striker down is not very practical if they allow you to hit the head unlimited.

Hell, I keep reminding myself if I ever face a grappler on the street,* BITE* and look for the eyes. I will never go into the octagon anyway.


----------



## BrendanF

Hanzou said:


> It is interesting that nearly all of the arts that form the basis of MMA don't contain kata training.



It is interesting that MMA and BJJ people are seemingly invested in distancing themselves from any notion of 'kata' practise.

Every single time someone practises a anything with another person... kata training.  The notion that solo, 'karate' style kata = kata is erroneous.  Kata traditionally means two person drill.

Beyond which.. how do you distinguish 'shadow boxing' from your definition of 'kata'?

Please bear in mind I am in no way defending solo kata style training as being optimal - I'm saying two people doing any form of drill or practise.. of anything.. is in fact kata training.


----------



## drop bear

Alan0354 said:


> Not just that, the whole system favors grapplers. Think of this, typically when grappler first shoot, they wrap their hands around your body. The head is right there. BUT rules do NOT allow you to hit the back of the head, you have to hit in certain way that is a big disadvantage to strikers. Just think if you are allowed to elbow to the back of the head, it will be a big game changer. Pushing the striker against the fence and work to pull the striker down is not very practical if they allow you to hit the head unlimited.
> 
> Hell, I keep reminding myself if I ever face a grappler on the street,* BITE* and look for the eyes. I will never go into the octagon anyway.



If you are wrestling well. That isn't as big an issue as you would think.

If the other guy wrestles better than you it can set him up for all sorts of striking. Legal or illegal.

Otherwise you can downward elbow. You just can't 12 to 6.  So you see a small kink thrown in to the technique.


----------



## Hanzou

BrendanF said:


> It is interesting that MMA and BJJ people are seemingly invested in distancing themselves from any notion of 'kata' practise.
> 
> Every single time someone practises a anything with another person... kata training.  The notion that solo, 'karate' style kata = kata is erroneous.  Kata traditionally means two person drill.
> 
> Beyond which.. how do you distinguish 'shadow boxing' from your definition of 'kata'?
> 
> Please bear in mind I am in no way defending solo kata style training as being optimal - I'm saying two people doing any form of drill or practise.. of anything.. is in fact kata training.



That’s a rather broad definition of kata. Katas are prearranged movements, and traditional styles tend to force their students to be exact in the movements and positioning. They also tend to use archaic stances and strikes that don’t appear in their actual fighting style, hence why “Bunkai” became so popular.

If I’m showing someone how to pass Guard, and then they drill that Guard pass, that really isn’t the same thing. The person doing  a Guard pass will immediately know if they’re doing the pass incorrectly because they won’t pass the guard. That’s immediate feedback against a resisting partner.

If we did it like a kata, the student would be doing the movement alone with an imaginary partner, or two people would be doing some exaggerated movement that looks like a dance floor routine with little to no actual application.


----------



## Hanzou

Alan0354 said:


> Not just that, the whole system favors grapplers. Think of this, typically when grappler first shoot, they wrap their hands around your body. The head is right there. BUT rules do NOT allow you to hit the back of the head, you have to hit in certain way that is a big disadvantage to strikers. Just think if you are allowed to elbow to the back of the head, it will be a big game changer. Pushing the striker against the fence and work to pull the striker down is not very practical if they allow you to hit the head unlimited.
> 
> Hell, I keep reminding myself if I ever face a grappler on the street,* BITE* and look for the eyes. I will never go into the octagon anyway.



Downward elbows to the back of the head were legal in the first UFCs. Didn’t do much to alter the outcome.

Also I seriously recommend against biting or eye gouging someone who has you in an inferior position. I suppose if they’re trying to actually murder you, you do what you gotta do. However if it’s just a dumb brawl and you’re losing, don’t escalate the violence.


----------



## BrendanF

Hanzou said:


> That’s a rather broad definition of kata. Katas are prearranged movements, and traditional styles tend to force their students to be exact in the movements and positioning. They also tend to use archaic stances and strikes that don’t appear in their actual fighting style, hence why “Bunkai” became so popular.



It's not at all: it's a Japanese term which has been in use for centuries.  The fact that karate relatively recently adopted it, and as a result Americans often think that is the orthodox use is the point I'm making.

Because I'm too lazy to spell it all out, here is some information on the term kata:


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/martialarts/comments/1u864b





__





						Is kata training too rigid and mechanical?
					

I've heard many people criticize kata training in classical martial arts over the years, but I think it is an essential practice.  I wrote this blog post in response to the critics.    http://budobum.blogspot.com/2013/11/kata-is-too-rigid-and-mechanical.html



					www.e-budo.com


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Now that is interesting. So you believe that systems that teach relevant skills more quickly are better suited to the MMA/NHB environment than systems that require more dedication?
> 
> It is interesting that nearly all of the arts that form the basis of MMA don't contain kata training.


I don't think it's so much about dedication (I don't think we could doubt the dedication of a high-level BJJ practitioner). Some systems simply have an approach that seems designed around slow development. I suspect that was at least partly designed for the purpose many of us like it for: it forces folks to deal with that slow progression, exhibit patience, etc. Nothing you can't do elsewhere, but I think it's part of many systems. Of course, if I want to get into a competition, I'm much better off focusing on what prepares me fastest for that competition.

There's a reason I don't get into the formal NGA curriculum (even my version of it) until someone has been training with me for some time. I focus early on things that develop basic fighting skills faster. But then we get into the NGA work, and things slow down. It's not a fast development process.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I don't think it's so much about dedication (I don't think we could doubt the dedication of a high-level BJJ practitioner). Some systems simply have an approach that seems designed around slow development. I suspect that was at least partly designed for the purpose many of us like it for: it forces folks to deal with that slow progression, exhibit patience, etc. Nothing you can't do elsewhere, but I think it's part of many systems. Of course, if I want to get into a competition, I'm much better off focusing on what prepares me fastest for that competition.
> 
> There's a reason I don't get into the formal NGA curriculum (even my version of it) until someone has been training with me for some time. I focus early on things that develop basic fighting skills faster. But then we get into the NGA work, and things slow down. It's not a fast development process.



Wouldn’t you also want faster progression and development if the goal is self defense?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> That’s a rather broad definition of kata. Katas are prearranged movements, and traditional styles tend to force their students to be exact in the movements and positioning. They also tend to use archaic stances and strikes that don’t appear in their actual fighting style, hence why “Bunkai” became so popular.
> 
> If I’m showing someone how to pass Guard, and then they drill that Guard pass, that really isn’t the same thing. The person doing  a Guard pass will immediately know if they’re doing the pass incorrectly because they won’t pass the guard. That’s immediate feedback against a resisting partner.
> 
> If we did it like a kata, the student would be doing the movement alone with an imaginary partner, or two people would be doing some exaggerated movement that looks like a dance floor routine with little to no actual application.


A large portion of kata, as I know it, is 2-person kata. They _are_ often more exact than a standard drill, but that feels more a matter of nuance. If you show me a single-leg takedown, and let me practice it, I'd be trying to replicate your movements as closely as possible until I "get it", so I understand how to handle variations. That's really what 2-person kata is. I think the largest difference is that many styles (or maybe just many instructors) focus a lot on exact stances and exact foot placement. But that (to me) isn't necessarily part of kata - it's how they are _using _kata. Even in the Classical forms (2-person kata) that I use, I look for general foot placement. If what they do is mechanically functional for that technique (allows use of the correct principles, structurally sound, etc.), then variations are acceptable. The more trouble a student has, the more exactly I coach their movements - I've found that's what works best for folks who struggle.

I don't understand a lot of traditional Japanese and Okinawan kata well enough to know if they are well-designed or not. I do know that some of what looks like odd movements/stances is about practicing body movement principles which are expressed differently in free-form movement, but do show up there. It's a different approach, and one I find (for reasons I don't really undersand, myself) I am quite fond of, as both student and instructor.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn’t you also want faster progression and development if the goal is self defense?


If it's _the goal_, probably. If it's _a goal_, then it depends. What's most important, in my experience, is that the student keep training and developing skills. For some folks, that means training in a system that particularly captures their attention, even if it's not the fastest method of developing fighting skill.

I shifted that starting portion of my curriculum specifically because of the point you're making. I felt folks could develop basic skills (striking, controlling distance, simple groundwork, controlling structure) much  more quickly, then have those to practice and sharpen while they are working on the more difficult and time-consuming portions of the curriculum. If I were teaching solely for self-defense (_the goal_), I'd stick mostly to those parts.


----------



## dvcochran

Hanzou said:


> That’s correct. It comes down to the skill of the fighter.
> 
> What always puzzled me is why we don’t see traditional styles like the hundreds of Chinese Kung Fu styles, Classical Japanese Jujutsu, or more traditional karate styles in MMA? Since they’re supposedly complete systems, they shouldn’t even need to cross train,


You make a point. But it is undeniable that most all the components of MMA are derivatives of these old styles. 
The best answer I can proffer is that it was a different training for a different time and intent. Time being the key element here. Time in training was grossly different, starting at a young age for many continuing until they went into battle. The idea of tapping out did not exist.


----------



## dvcochran

Hanzou said:


> Considering a friend of mine got his collar-bone dislocated from being slammed on that "bouncy padded floor", I would say no. This is a common excuse that popped up after the first UFCs because "strikers" didn't like how they performed overall. Grapplers don't have an advantage because of rules, equipment, set-up, etc. Grapplers have an advantage period because of how they train, and how grappling works.
> 
> A striker has to knock out or disable the grappler quickly, and they have very limited opportunities to do so. If a wrestler is coming in for a DLT and the striker screws up and doesn't stop the shoot, it's pretty much over. Grapplers on the other hand have multiple opportunities, and can actually set up strikers to throw a strike that will more easily open them up for a takedown. BTW, this isn't to say that a striker can't knock out a person moving in for a takedown, I'm saying that a grappler has a higher chance of accomplishing that takedown than the striker has of knocking them unconscious.





Hanzou said:


> A striker has to knock out or disable the grappler quickly, and they have very limited opportunities to do so.


This is simply not true in the bigger picture. You do go on to clarify this somewhat, but then you close by confining your argument to a takedown. 

It is a head scratcher that you seem to think a striker's mindset it that every strike Has to be a knock out. 
In proportion to the number of boxing matches there have been, how many have finished with only one punch?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I think a lot of it comes down to efficiency for the context, if nothing else. Being competitive in something like MMA means developing skill as fast as (or faster than) the next guy. Systems that are designed for a plodding approach don’t convert well.


This is similar to the old canard that MMA and BJJ only teach the simple techniques which explained why they were able to apply them so quickly.  Personally, I believe that when you apply skills, your skills improve fairly predictably.  And when you don’t, skill development is very unreliable. 

So, I’m a nutshell, if people become skilled in a plodding manner… that is a pretty good indication something is up with application, a disconnect between what they are learning and what they are doing.


BrendanF said:


> It's not at all: it's a Japanese term which has been in use for centuries.  The fact that karate relatively recently adopted it, and as a result Americans often think that is the orthodox use is the point I'm making.
> 
> Because I'm too lazy to spell it all out, here is some information on the term kata:
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/martialarts/comments/1u864b
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is kata training too rigid and mechanical?
> 
> 
> I've heard many people criticize kata training in classical martial arts over the years, but I think it is an essential practice.  I wrote this blog post in response to the critics.    http://budobum.blogspot.com/2013/11/kata-is-too-rigid-and-mechanical.html
> 
> 
> 
> www.e-budo.com


Some folks around here who are really into kata are going to be surprised to learn that they don't really understand it.  That might be worth another thread.  Because the karate folks seem to have some real opinions on the topic.


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> A large portion of kata, as I know it, is 2-person kata. They _are_ often more exact than a standard drill, but that feels more a matter of nuance. If you show me a single-leg takedown, and let me practice it, I'd be trying to replicate your movements as closely as possible until I "get it", so I understand how to handle variations. That's really what 2-person kata is. I think the largest difference is that many styles (or maybe just many instructors) focus a lot on exact stances and exact foot placement. But that (to me) isn't necessarily part of kata - it's how they are _using _kata. Even in the Classical forms (2-person kata) that I use, I look for general foot placement. If what they do is mechanically functional for that technique (allows use of the correct principles, structurally sound, etc.), then variations are acceptable. The more trouble a student has, the more exactly I coach their movements - I've found that's what works best for folks who struggle.
> 
> I don't understand a lot of traditional Japanese and Okinawan kata well enough to know if they are well-designed or not. I do know that some of what looks like odd movements/stances is about practicing body movement principles which are expressed differently in free-form movement, but do show up there. It's a different approach, and one I find (for reasons I don't really undersand, myself) I am quite fond of, as both student and instructor.


I feel your 'footwork' comment nails it. As long as it is in the realm of correct/functional And the execution of the technique is sound, balanced, and firmly based, I do not get too hung up on stance. So much has to do with anatomy, which seems to be overlooked sometimes. 
I have always wondered if some of this derives from societies where the average body height was/is shorter and possibly more consistent. 
I also think it gets exacerbated when forms used in competition are introduced into the argument. These should completely live outside the argument and are much more akin to precision dance competition. Things like foot placement are very critically judged.


----------



## Hanzou

BrendanF said:


> It's not at all: it's a Japanese term which has been in use for centuries.  The fact that karate relatively recently adopted it, and as a result Americans often think that is the orthodox use is the point I'm making.



Except it's also in JJJ as well, and the same issues emerge within those arts. Those issues are techniques that tend to not be able to be applied in live fashion. You see this with karate exponents pretty much fighting like kickboxers instead of anything remotely similar to their katas.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> A large portion of kata, as I know it, is 2-person kata. They _are_ often more exact than a standard drill, but that feels more a matter of nuance. If you show me a single-leg takedown, and let me practice it, I'd be trying to replicate your movements as closely as possible until I "get it", so I understand how to handle variations. That's really what 2-person kata is. I think the largest difference is that many styles (or maybe just many instructors) focus a lot on exact stances and exact foot placement. But that (to me) isn't necessarily part of kata - it's how they are _using _kata. Even in the Classical forms (2-person kata) that I use, I look for general foot placement. If what they do is mechanically functional for that technique (allows use of the correct principles, structurally sound, etc.), then variations are acceptable. The more trouble a student has, the more exactly I coach their movements - I've found that's what works best for folks who struggle.
> 
> I don't understand a lot of traditional Japanese and Okinawan kata well enough to know if they are well-designed or not. I do know that some of what looks like odd movements/stances is about practicing body movement principles which are expressed differently in free-form movement, but do show up there. It's a different approach, and one I find (for reasons I don't really undersand, myself) I am quite fond of, as both student and instructor.



I completely disagree. Drilling a single technique and saying that is the same as kata is a highly dubious statement, because kata is highly complex and intricate. Judo 2-person kata is a prime example of this.






I would say that the above is nothing remotely similar to drilling a single technique with a partner.


----------



## Hanzou

dvcochran said:


> You make a point. But it is undeniable that most all the components of MMA are derivatives of these old styles.
> The best answer I can proffer is that it was a different training for a different time and intent. Time being the key element here. Time in training was grossly different, starting at a young age for many continuing until they went into battle. The idea of tapping out did not exist.



Wouldn't a more accurate statement is that modern methodologies entered into the equation, thus forcing a more modern approach to training? For example, you don't really need to know how to use a sword if everyone is now using guns, and it's illegal to carry a sword.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> You make a point. But it is undeniable that most all the components of MMA are derivatives of these old styles.
> The best answer I can proffer is that it was a different training for a different time and intent. Time being the key element here. Time in training was grossly different, starting at a young age for many continuing until they went into battle. The idea of tapping out did not exist.


Hold on. I think I get your point.  If you're saying that historical training was for a different purpose, and in a different context, I agree.  It makes sense.  People trained with swords in medieval Europe because they used them in combat.  

But are you suggesting that they didn't "tap out" in training?  Are you talking about the literal idea of "tapping out" or are you saying that the idea of any kind of symbolic defeat did not exist?


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't a more accurate statement is that modern methodologies entered into the equation, thus forcing a more modern approach to training? For example, you don't really need to know how to use a sword if everyone is now using guns, and it's illegal to carry a sword.


If nothing else, it makes getting really good at using a sword very difficult, because you can't ever really use it anymore.  Which leads to sport...


----------



## Hanzou

dvcochran said:


> This is simply not true in the bigger picture. You do go on to clarify this somewhat, but then you close by confining your argument to a takedown.
> 
> It is a head scratcher that you seem to think a striker's mindset it that every strike Has to be a knock out.
> In proportion to the number of boxing matches there have been, how many have finished with only one punch?



The point is that if a grappler takes you down, and you have little to no grappling experience, your chances of success are greatly diminished. This is especially the case if you're dealing with a submission grappler. Thus, if you're someone whose martial arts completely revolve around punching and kicking and remaining on your feet, you're only real chance is to end the encounter as quickly as possible. Why? Because if you're allowing repeated takedown attempts, at some point (sometimes the first attempt) the grappler will be successful.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> If it's _the goal_, probably. If it's _a goal_, then it depends. What's most important, in my experience, is that the student keep training and developing skills. For some folks, that means training in a system that particularly captures their attention, even if it's not the fastest method of developing fighting skill.
> 
> I shifted that starting portion of my curriculum specifically because of the point you're making. I felt folks could develop basic skills (striking, controlling distance, simple groundwork, controlling structure) much  more quickly, then have those to practice and sharpen while they are working on the more difficult and time-consuming portions of the curriculum. If I were teaching solely for self-defense (_the goal_), I'd stick mostly to those parts.



I suppose the point I'm getting at is that a training methodology that encourages fast progression and rapid development doesn't ONLY benefit competition goals, it also benefits goals that revolve around self defense, fitness, and other MA goals.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> Some folks around here who are really into kata are going to be surprised to learn that they don't really understand it. That might be worth another thread. Because the karate folks seem to have some real opinions on the topic.


The arguments between the "kata is great" crowd and the "kata sucks" crowd are nothing compared to the arguments that kata lovers can have among themselves about what kata is actually for and how it's supposed to work.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

gpseymour said:


> I think a lot of it comes down to efficiency for the context, if nothing else. Being competitive in something like MMA means developing skill as fast as (or faster than) the next guy. Systems that are designed for a plodding approach don’t convert well.


Because competition isnt always the focus, mastery of the self is higher on the list than mastery of others in some “plodding” systems. I have said as much earlier, and in other threads than this. I realize that younger guys typically do need to test their abilities in as close to real world situations as possible. That is an important part of training and growth as a martial artist. I also believe there are other worlds than these to explore and learn from in the process or journey or whatever you concieve as your reasons for training. In other words, there are many things on the list, fighting is only one of them.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Alan0354 said:


> Not just that, the whole system favors grapplers. Think of this, typically when grappler first shoot, they wrap their hands around your body. The head is right there. BUT rules do NOT allow you to hit the back of the head, you have to hit in certain way that is a big disadvantage to strikers. Just think if you are allowed to elbow to the back of the head, it will be a big game changer. Pushing the striker against the fence and work to pull the striker down is not very practical if they allow you to hit the head unlimited.
> 
> Hell, I keep reminding myself if I ever face a grappler on the street,* BITE* and look for the eyes. I will never go into the octagon anyway.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Biting and eye gouging may not relieve the choke. Many guys will hang on through a bite or a gouge. Best to get some ground training or you may find yourself in a bad situation. A leg lock will ruin your life if you are ankle biting the guy and he goes full tilt. As much as i prefer to strike, I realize the importance of ground game. As Hanzou has stated, you can get some jiu jutsu basics fairly quickly.  A DLT on the street can kill you if your head gets slammed on concrete. A sub dural bleed is serious business.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> This is simply not true in the bigger picture. You do go on to clarify this somewhat, but then you close by confining your argument to a takedown.
> 
> It is a head scratcher that you seem to think a striker's mindset it that every strike Has to be a knock out.
> In proportion to the number of boxing matches there have been, how many have finished with only one punch?



That is because Striking and grappling work differently.


----------



## drop bear

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Because competition isnt always the focus, mastery of the self is higher on the list than mastery of others in some “plodding” systems. I have said as much earlier, and in other threads than this. I realize that younger guys typically do need to test their abilities in as close to real world situations as possible. That is an important part of training and growth as a martial artist. I also believe there are other worlds than these to explore and learn from in the process or journey or whatever you concieve as your reasons for training. In other words, there are many things on the list, fighting is only one of them.



So as you mature you start to chase other things than honesty?


----------



## drop bear

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Biting and eye gouging may not relieve the choke. Many guys will hang on through a bite or a gouge. Best to get some ground training or you may find yourself in a bad situation. A leg lock will ruin your life if you are ankle biting the guy and he goes full tilt. As much as i prefer to strike, I realize the importance of ground game. As Hanzou has stated, you can get some jiu jutsu basics fairly quickly.  A DLT on the street can kill you if your head gets slammed on concrete. A sub dural bleed is serious business.



Ironically I think a heel hook would be super effective against a biter/eye gouger as it attacks the other side of their body.

I do a kasegetami and a gift wrap to prevent that kind of silliness from people. Although if I wanted to bite or eyegouge them. I would be in a good position to do so.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> This is similar to the old canard that MMA and BJJ only teach the simple techniques which explained why they were able to apply them so quickly.  Personally, I believe that when you apply skills, your skills improve fairly predictably.  And when you don’t, skill development is very unreliable.
> 
> So, I’m a nutshell, if people become skilled in a plodding manner… that is a pretty good indication something is up with application, a disconnect between what they are learning and what they are doing.


I can see where you're coming from on this. But there are some things that are not sped up by resistive application. I'll go back to my core art in this. There is a lot of nuance to be explored - this is a big part of what I've always loved about the art. I've never seen that nuance show up for a relatively new practitioner (even the really quick learners) when doing any kind of free randori. The reason for that is pretty straightforward: there are other skills and principles within what we do that are much easier to apply against resistance. It takes a long time to get good enough at the nuanced stuff for it to be directly usable.

This is why I give more expression to the Judo in what we do than a lot of instructors. That portion is more directly applicable in the first few years, while the other parts (the aiki stuff) is developing. Resistance does (in my experience) improve the ability to deal with resistance. But it doesn't necessarily speed up the development of all factors. Because resistance leads us to use what works against it (and away from what doesn't), relying on it for all aspects of the style would cause those slower-developing aspects to wither. Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you're trying to make the style more efficient for development. But it would intrinsically change what the style is, leaving out part that fascinates me more than 30 years into it.

I find this difficult to explain, frankly. It's something I've been discussing with someone else in DMs, and it's something I know how to develop, but am still learning how to explain well.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> So as you mature you start to chase other things than honesty?


That’s just rude, and ignorant.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I completely disagree. Drilling a single technique and saying that is the same as kata is a highly dubious statement, because kata is highly complex and intricate. Judo 2-person kata is a prime example of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that the above is nothing remotely similar to drilling a single technique with a partner.


Not all kata are. The kata (what I refer to as "Classical forms") in NGA are static-start fed single techniques with a passive partner. In a few of them, they aren't passive, because they are feeding the technique (stepping in to shove, deliveirng a front kick, etc.). Mind you, the original versions (as I understand them) from Daito-ryu were a bit more....stylized.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> Ironically I think a heel hook would be super effective against a biter/eye gouger as it attacks the other side of their body.
> 
> I do a kasegetami and a gift wrap to prevent that kind of silliness from people. Although if I wanted to bite or eyegouge them. I would be in a good position to do so.


That’s literally what I said.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> Ironically I think a heel hook would be super effective against a biter/eye gouger as it attacks the other side of their body.
> 
> I do a kasegetami and a gift wrap to prevent that kind of silliness from people. Although if I wanted to bite or eyegouge them. I would be in a good position to do so.


Its ironic that you think you understand irony.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I suppose the point I'm getting at is that a training methodology that encourages fast progression and rapid development doesn't ONLY benefit competition goals, it also benefits goals that revolve around self defense, fitness, and other MA goals.


I wholly agree. I think (I've kind of lost track here, so forgive me if I get off track) my point was that competition favors the quicker development at all stages. So there's not much room in inter-style competition for a style that takes a plodding path, even for part of what they do. Someone doing something that stays focused on faster development against resistance will gain an irrecoverable advantage (unless they stop developinng, of course).


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

I really try to keep a civil tone here. I would appreciate the same courtesy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So as you mature you start to chase other things than honesty?


So, you find anything other than fighting dishonest?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

This


gpseymour said:


> So, you find anything other than fighting dishonest?


It seems to me that he wants to interject hyperbole into whatever discussion the adults are having.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> That is because Striking and grappling work differently.


How very profound. Who knew?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> So as you mature you start to chase other things than honesty?


I honestly hope you start to mature your chase for conversational content.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I wholly agree. I think (I've kind of lost track here, so forgive me if I get off track) my point was that competition favors the quicker development at all stages. So there's not much room in inter-style competition for a style that takes a plodding path, even for part of what they do. Someone doing something that stays focused on faster development against resistance will gain an irrecoverable advantage (unless they stop developinng, of course).


I think we're getting somewhere.  I would expect that folks who are plodding along would see a much faster development at all stages if they competed.  You seem to believe that some things are just intrinsically plodding.  That may be so relative to other things.  But every activity requires some kind of application in order to move out of a cursory understanding and into all of that higher level nuance you referenced earlier.  And the more consistent the application is with the purpose of the activity, the faster and more predictable the development of skill.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> I think we're getting somewhere.  I would expect that folks who are plodding along would see a much faster development at all stages if they competed.  You seem to believe that some things are just intrinsically plodding.  That may be so relative to other things.  But every activity requires some kind of application in order to move out of a cursory understanding and into all of that higher level nuance you referenced earlier.  And the more consistent the application is with the purpose of the activity, the faster and more predictable the development of skill.


i don’t know you guys, I don’t your background, your age, your experience level etc.  Would those of you contributing to this discussion care to reveal anything like this? I ask because I believe it’s informative to the discussion. Are all of you instructors of your respective arts? Professional fighters? 10 years? 40 years? It matters for a variety of reasons.


----------



## drop bear

Wing Woo Gar said:


> How very profound. Who knew?



Surprisingly not many. 

Some people think a takedown works like a punch where say like you punch someone and they are knocked out or not. You throw someone and they fall over or don't. 

But takedowns don't work that way as you take a dominant position. Which makes the takedown easier and so on. 

But you takedown


----------



## drop bear

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I honestly hope you start to mature your chase for conversational content.



Well yeah. So when you are young you want to risk loss and develop yourself and your martial arts. 

Then at some point you are training for easy victory and recognition.

I mean you still take the belts but you gain them by doing activities that are subjective. Like gradings and what not. And of course nobody wants to fail an old guy. So then they have to nurse you through that.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't a more accurate statement is that modern methodologies entered into the equation, thus forcing a more modern approach to training? For example, you don't really need to know how to use a sword if everyone is now using guns, and it's illegal to carry a sword.


That is a false equivalence, a sword and a gun are two different tools for two different applications. They each have a use, they each have a virtue, there is some overlap as they are both weapons.  I think of competition and self defense in a similar fashion. Both are combat, in both instances the goal is to win.  The terrain and methods differ significantly. In self defense, there may be multiple opponents, weapons, water, glass, etc. Going to the ground may be better in one situation, but there are no guarantees of anything in the street. This is where I will make my argument that if competition style “fighting” is all you learned, you may not come out on top. That is metaphorically and maybe even literally speaking, bringing a sword to a gunfight.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> Well yeah. So when you are young you want to risk loss and develop yourself and your martial arts.
> 
> Then at some point you are training for easy victory and recognition.
> 
> I mean you still take the belts but you gain them by doing activities that are subjective. Like gradings and what not. And of course nobody wants to fail an old guy. So then they have to nurse you through that.


And how old is old to you? Training for easy victory?  is that how your school trains? Nursing old guys through the next belt because you don’t want to fail them? Are you joking?


----------



## Hanzou

Wing Woo Gar said:


> That is a false equivalence, a sword and a gun are two different tools for two different applications. They each have a use, they each have a virtue, there is some overlap as they are both weapons.  I think of competition and self defense in a similar fashion. Both are combat, in both instances the goal is to win.  The terrain and methods differ significantly. In self defense, there may be multiple opponents, weapons, water, glass, etc. Going to the ground may be better in one situation, but there are no guarantees of anything in the street. This is where I will make my argument that if competition style “fighting” is all you learned, you may not come out on top. That is metaphorically and maybe even literally speaking, bringing a sword to a gunfight.



Going to the ground is actually better in multiple situations. If you're a teacher having to deal with a crazed student, taking them to the ground and pinning them is a good way to diffuse the situation without hurting them. Same applies if you need to control a loved one. 

If you're dealing with a better stand up grappler, being a superior ground grappler may give you a chance, since excellent stand up grapplers like wrestlers rarely learn submissions.

Dealing with someone throwing strikes, closing the distance getting into the clinch and taking them down can reduce your chance of severe injury.

If you're a woman in an inferior position and getting attacked or sexually assaulted, learning BJJ escapes, sweeps, and especially chokes from inferior positions can be critical to stopping an assault and maybe even saving your life.

If you get knocked to the ground and have to fight off your back without much chance of being able to fully stand, you better learn how to get them to the ground (which is possible if you know the sweeps from that position). 

There's more obviously, but going to the ground has a myriad of benefits.

As for the sword vs the gun, the point is there isn't much point in learning how to use a sword. You're not going to be carrying a sword around all the time, if ever, and you really can't replace sword application with a broom stick or a baton. It seems rather silly to spend a great deal of time learning sword work for self defense if it's something you're never going to really use. Given America's lax gun laws (if you live in the US) you're better off buying a gun and going to the range for target practice.

BTW, I always find it amusing when the  multiple attacker argument pops up, because that's a worst case scenario REGARDLESS of what martial arts system you take. It's not about going to the ground is a bad idea in a multiple attacker situation, it's about the fact that a multiple attacker situation is very bad period. The discussion should be avoiding getting attacked by multiple attackers in the first place, because even if you're mister "I'm staying on my feet no matter what", you're going to lose in a multiple attacker situation. The only art that has a high chance of success in a multiple attacker situation is Run Fu taught by Sifu Nike and Sensei Adidas.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't a more accurate statement is that modern methodologies entered into the equation, thus forcing a more modern approach to training? For example, you don't really need to know how to use a sword if everyone is now using guns, and it's illegal to carry a sword.


It's never illegal to carry a long stick, and even a child can wield one effectively.

How come we didn't need MMA to tell us anything about staff combat?  Because we already knew it can be lethal.  The "sport" version of many weapon martial arts would still lead to countless deaths.  The combat sports are just safe enough to be legal, except where they aren't.

This child is displaying something far more powerful than the fixed set he's doing.  That is kung fu in a nutshell. So is modern sport combat.  It's the same thing because if this kid grows up to learn MMA, watch out.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I think we're getting somewhere.  I would expect that folks who are plodding along would see a much faster development at all stages if they competed.  You seem to believe that some things are just intrinsically plodding.  That may be so relative to other things.  But every activity requires some kind of application in order to move out of a cursory understanding and into all of that higher level nuance you referenced earlier.  And the more consistent the application is with the purpose of the activity, the faster and more predictable the development of skill.


Some things can't be applied (in your sense) until they are developed sufficiently. I don't know any way a partially developed use of aiki tension can be leveraged in application. It's either there, or trying to use it becomes an opening for the opponent. So, for someone trying to compete, there's a disincentive to try to use it, and a strong incentive to avoid trying to use it and find something else that works in that context. So trying to use that tension in competition before it is properly developed will absolutely not speed it up, and is likely to help develop the habit of not using it.

Once it has been developed, it could be brought to competition.

EDIT: I guess what I forgot to say in this is that I mostly agree. Competition will be likely to develop the martial artist in their general skills (for that competition, of course), but not necessarily for some specific attributes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Wing Woo Gar said:


> i don’t know you guys, I don’t your background, your age, your experience level etc.  Would those of you contributing to this discussion care to reveal anything like this? I ask because I believe it’s informative to the discussion. Are all of you instructors of your respective arts? Professional fighters? 10 years? 40 years? It matters for a variety of reasons.


I don't think age is all that relevant. Years of experience is, but doesn't really get to to the heart of what you're wondering. I'll just say that everyone significantly involved in this (drop bear, Hanzou, Steve) has a significant level of experience, though their experiences are quite different.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Steve said:


> If nothing else, it makes getting really good at using a sword very difficult, because you can't ever really use it anymore.  Which leads to sport...


You can master a stick, carry a stick, ward off attackers with a stick, disarm people with a stick.

That's before we get to dancing with it.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Musashi won one of his most famous duels with a boat oar.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> Going to the ground is actually better in multiple situations. If you're a teacher having to deal with a crazed student, taking them to the ground and pinning them is a good way to diffuse the situation without hurting them. Same applies if you need to control a loved one.
> 
> If you're dealing with a better stand up grappler, being a superior ground grappler may give you a chance, since excellent stand up grapplers like wrestlers rarely learn submissions.
> 
> Dealing with someone throwing strikes, closing the distance getting into the clinch and taking them down can reduce your chance of severe injury.
> 
> If you're a woman in an inferior position and getting attacked or sexually assaulted, learning BJJ escapes, sweeps, and especially chokes from inferior positions can be critical to stopping an assault and maybe even saving your life.
> 
> If you get knocked to the ground and have to fight off your back without much chance of being able to fully stand, you better learn how to get them to the ground (which is possible if you know the sweeps from that position).
> 
> There's more obviously, but going to the ground has a myriad of benefits.
> 
> As for the sword vs the gun, the point is there isn't much point in learning how to use a sword. You're not going to be carrying a sword around all the time, if ever, and you really can't replace sword application with a broom stick or a baton. It seems rather silly to spend a great deal of time learning sword work for self defense if it's something you're never going to really use. Given America's lax gun laws (if you live in the US) you're better off buying a gun and going to the range for target practice.
> 
> BTW, I always find it amusing when the  multiple attacker argument pops up, because that's a worst case scenario REGARDLESS of what martial arts system you take. It's not about going to the ground is a bad idea in a multiple attacker situation, it's about the fact that a multiple attacker situation is very bad period. The discussion should be avoiding getting attacked by multiple attackers in the first place, because even if you're mister "I'm staying on my feet no matter what", you're going to lose in a multiple attacker situation. The only art that has a high chance of success in a multiple attacker situation is Run Fu taught by Sifu Nike and Sensei Adidas.


I agree that run fu is always best. its not always obvious that there are multiple attackers initially. I have been in that situation more than once. It is more often the case where I grew up. People who train aren’t generally out there starting fights in the street. More often it’s a group of individuals pumping each other up to do that. Situational awareness to avoid is better than getting into a stand up or ground fight any day. I only rock Sifu adidas never sensei Nike.


----------



## isshinryuronin

gpseymour said:


> Because resistance leads us to use what works against it (and away from what doesn't), relying on it for all aspects of the style would cause those slower-developing aspects to wither. Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you're trying to make the style more efficient for development. But it would intrinsically change what the style is, leaving out part that fascinates me more than 30 years into it.
> 
> I find this difficult to explain, frankly.


If all one is interested in is getting sustenance, they don't need to go beyond peanut butter & jelly and tuna fish sandwiches.  It's effective and quick serves its purpose.  So why spend time learning to cook?  But one will never become a gourmet chef and appreciate complex flavors if expediency is the only concern.

It's possible now, it seems, to be happy communicating by text with LOL, WTF, OMG, and other shorthand (that I know nothing about).  Quick and effective, so what is the incentive to actually learn to spell, use compound sentences and be able to write prose or poetry? 

By short circuiting the "plodding path," the job may get done, but the art and its intricacies are lost.  The style, which gave birth to the quick and effective techniques, suffers.  Perhaps there should be a distinction between a fighting method and a martial "art."  A method can be learned quickly, to learn an art may take decades.  A method does not contain the full art.  But the art will contain the method.  However, nothing precludes one from following both paths simultaneously, if they wish.

It all depends on what you want to get out of the activity.  I'm a creative cook and like to add subtle flavors of several ethnic cuisines.  Time consuming and a lot to clean up, but I _really_ enjoy the meal.  But I can still make a peanut butter & jelly sandwich with the best of them.

Did I come close, GPS?


----------



## Hanzou

Oily Dragon said:


> It's never illegal to carry a long stick, and even a child can wield one effectively.



Yeah, whacking someone with a stick is completely different than slashing someone with an edged weapon. Hence why Jo do and even Kendo is nothing like Kenjutsu or other sword arts. You're better off learning Filipino stick fighting than trying to replace sword slashes with hitting someone with a stick.

Even with that said, how often are you going to be carrying around a staff or a baton?



> How come we didn't need MMA to tell us anything about staff combat?  Because we already knew it can be lethal.  The "sport" version of many weapon martial arts would still lead to countless deaths.  The combat sports are just safe enough to be legal, except where they aren't.



Do you have some information and statistics from these underground bloodsports where people are slaughtered on a consistent basis with medieval weapons?



> This child is displaying something far more powerful than the fixed set he's doing.  That is kung fu in a nutshell. So is modern sport combat.  It's the same thing because if this kid grows up to learn MMA, watch out.



I have a feeling that despite all of that pretty dancing with a stick, someone could just walk up and sock him in the face.....

Yeah, that's how low my opinion on kata/forms has become.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Hanzou said:


> I have a feeling that despite all of that pretty dancing with a stick, someone could just walk up and sock him in the face.....


Few would dare, though. "Emotional content".

Here's another example of the same set.

Go on, Half Hidden...walk up and sock him in the face with your grappling prowess.  Try not to get your skull caved in.  Afterward he'll tell the authorities, without lying, that he defended himself with a walking stick.


----------



## Hanzou

Oily Dragon said:


> Few would dare, though. "Emotional content".
> 
> Here's another example of the same set.
> 
> Go on, Half Hidden...walk up and sock him in the face with your grappling prowess.  Try not to get your skull caved in.  Afterward he'll tell the authorities, without lying, that he defended himself with a walking stick.



Do you have an example of someone defending themselves with a kung-fu staff style in modern times?


----------



## Alan0354

Hanzou said:


> Do you have an example of someone defending themselves with a kung-fu staff style in modern times?


In the video, the stick is very long. Not only it's not practical to carry around, it's too clumsy to swing around in tight space. You need open space to use that long a stick.

But for short stick, why not, we call it walk cane. I am carrying a cane everywhere I go. I practice using a walking cane for self defense. I would take this over bare hand striking or even grappling.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> Do you have an example of someone defending themselves with a kung-fu staff style in modern times?
> 
> 
> Hanzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have an example of someone defending themselves with a kung-fu staff style in modern times?
> 
> 
> 
> We have established that you feel Bjj is the be all, end all Martial art. Do You practice any striking? How do feel about a speed bag? Heavy bag? Calisthenics? Is that all a waste of time? It’s not fighting per se. I have no examples of defending in modern times with a jump rope. Although we do have a heavy weighted jump rope that the students have named Igor.
Click to expand...


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

By the way I have been defeated by Igor more than once lol.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

isshinryuronin said:


> If all one is interested in is getting sustenance, they don't need to go beyond peanut butter & jelly and tuna fish sandwiches.  It's effective and quick serves its purpose.  So why spend time learning to cook?  But one will never become a gourmet chef and appreciate complex flavors if expediency is the only concern.
> 
> It's possible now, it seems, to be happy communicating by text with LOL, WTF, OMG, and other shorthand (that I know nothing about).  Quick and effective, so what is the incentive to actually learn to spell, use compound sentences and be able to write prose or poetry?
> 
> By short circuiting the "plodding path," the job may get done, but the art and its intricacies are lost.  The style, which gave birth to the quick and effective techniques, suffers.  Perhaps there should be a distinction between a fighting method and a martial "art."  A method can be learned quickly, to learn an art may take decades.  A method does not contain the full art.  But the art will contain the method.  However, nothing precludes one from following both paths simultaneously, if they wish.
> 
> It all depends on what you want to get out of the activity.  I'm a creative cook and like to add subtle flavors of several ethnic cuisines.  Time consuming and a lot to clean up, but I _really_ enjoy the meal.  But I can still make a peanut butter & jelly sandwich with the best of them.
> 
> Did I come close, GPS?


Well said.


----------



## Hanzou

Alan0354 said:


> In the video, the stick is very long. Not only it's not practical to carry around, it's too clumsy to swing around in tight space. You need open space to use that long a stick.
> 
> But for short stick, why not, we call it walk cane. I am carrying a cane everywhere I go. I practice using a walking cane for self defense. I would take this over bare hand striking or even grappling.



Yes, I can see how a cane or a short staff could work. I would say that there will be cases where your cane isn't available.


----------



## drop bear

Oily Dragon said:


> You can master a stick, carry a stick, ward off attackers with a stick, disarm people with a stick.
> 
> That's before we get to dancing with it.



But the same kind of rules apply. Someone who fought with a stick would be better than someone who has just drilled.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

gpseymour said:


> I don't think age is all that relevant. Years of experience is, but doesn't really get to to the heart of what you're wondering. I'll just say that everyone significantly involved in this (drop bear, Hanzou, Steve) has a significant level of experience, though their experiences are quite different.


Exactly, the differences are what I’m interested in. I’m 50 years old I trained in jjj from age 9-13. I learned to box with my uncle who was a Navy boxer. I grew up in a fairly dangerous place where I saw (experienced) a lot of violence on the street. I worked as a bouncer on weekends. I Work in the medical field. I started seriously training in CMA (WingWooGar)when I was 24, trained continuously and consistently since then. I have taught for 7 years now. I still consider myself a student. I am also training bjj recently. Now you know something about where I’m coming from. ( oh and I like fireplaces and long walks on the beach too.)


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> But the same kind of rules apply. Someone who fought with a stick would be better than someone who has just drilled.


Wait, how many people have fought with a stick with any measure of skill that didn’t drill with it first?


----------



## Alan0354

Hanzou said:


> Yes, I can see how a cane or a short staff could work. I would say that there will be cases where your cane isn't available.


I carry everywhere I go now.


----------



## drop bear

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Wait, how many people have fought with a stick with any measure of skill that didn’t drill with it first?



Ten? Mabye.

That isn't the point though. There will be a lot more people who have drilled with a stick but never fought with one.

And I wouldn't really consider them trained in fighting with a stick.

So you know like this. They might think they can handle themselves. But they actually can't.


----------



## Oily Dragon

drop bear said:


> But the same kind of rules apply. Someone who fought with a stick would be better than someone who has just drilled.


Someone who just drilled would be better off than someone who never fought or drilled.

But maybe not.

You know how you spot a fighting stick school, right?  Missing teeth.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Hanzou said:


> Do you have an example of someone defending themselves with a kung-fu staff style in modern times?


Yes, I did it right here in this thread, at least twice.

My cane is always within hand's reach.  I'd draw you a picture if I was any good.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> They might think they can handle themselves. But they actually can't.


I believe if you train MA, you should enter the Golden Gloves boxing at least once in your life time. The issue is you can only do that when you are still young.

When you experience that your opponent tries to knock you down, you then understand that to knock your opponent down is better than to be knocked down. You will then understand how important the "finish moves" are.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I believe if you train MA, you should enter the Golden Gloves boxing at least once in your life time. The issue is you can only do that when you are still young.
> 
> When you experience that your opponent tries to knock you down, you then understand that to knock your opponent down is better than to be knocked down. You will then understand how important the "finish moves" are.



Golden gloves have a masters division.

Otherwise there are other masters amateur competitions out there. Which is all the golden gloves basically are. 

We have a few of our guys compete. And a few win golden gloves.


----------



## drop bear

Oily Dragon said:


> Someone who just drilled would be better off than someone who never fought or drilled.
> 
> But maybe not.
> 
> You know how you spot a fighting stick school, right?  Missing teeth.



It depends. I mean again we don't really know. It is just assumed that drilling with a stick makes you better at it.

I have trained stick and gone at it with friends with nerf bats. And honestly I really wasn't much better off.

Coming at you fast with intent is nothing like heaven six.

Just like the judo video live stick fighting is a different animal to a drill.


----------



## Alan0354

drop bear said:


> Ten? Mabye.
> 
> That isn't the point though. There will be a lot more people who have drilled with a stick but never fought with one.
> 
> And I wouldn't really consider them trained in fighting with a stick.
> 
> So you know like this. They might think they can handle themselves. But they actually can't.


I have been practicing hard on stick fight with a cane by myself. Are you saying it's useless for self defense?

I can understand it would be more effective if I actually join a school and spar with people, but I cannot see that it's useless practicing by myself. I know I can swing a lot faster, move a lot better with the stick now than before I start practicing for sure.


----------



## drop bear

Alan0354 said:


> I have been practicing hard on stick fight with a cane by myself. Are you saying it's useless for self defense?
> 
> I can understand it would be more effective if I actually join a school and spar with people, but I cannot see that it's useless practicing by myself. I know I can swing a lot faster, move a lot better with the stick now than before I start practicing for sure.



It depends how you practice I guess. Bear in mind practice can mean literally anything. 

I am not saying it doesn't make you better. I am saying it might not. And you need to find out. Because you could be practicing the wrong thing. And making yourself worse.


----------



## Alan0354

drop bear said:


> It depends how you practice I guess. Bear in mind practice can mean literally anything.
> 
> I am not saying it doesn't make you better. I am saying it might not. And you need to find out. Because you could be practicing the wrong thing. And making yourself worse.


What is the right thing and what is the wrong thing?


----------



## Alan0354

drop bear said:


> It depends. I mean again we don't really know. It is just assumed that drilling with a stick makes you better at it.
> 
> I have trained stick and gone at it with friends with nerf bats. And honestly I really wasn't much better off.
> 
> Coming at you fast with intent is nothing like heaven six.
> 
> Just like the judo video live stick fighting is a different animal to a drill.


About the two video, I did not even finish the second video, it's way too fancy and I don't think it's useful in real world even if I have a partner to practice with. We had some of the drills like this in my Tae Kwon Do before, I find it absolutely useless. Maybe it's just me, those drills just make me laugh, just like how I feel in TKD. Total waste of time. In real life, you do NOT have time to do those fancy moves AND nothing is that perfect the attack comes in like in the drill.

The first video is more realistic, BUT all I really see is people swing at each other. Maybe I miss it, I don't see a lot of defense or blocking. More like who reach the other person faster and land the strike first. Also footwork to move away from the attack(if they can). Then when close contact, the punch and kick comes into play.

That tells me practicing footwork to move in and out fast is important, strike hard and fast also important. All the fancy drills are out the window.....just like how I feel in the TKD training those days.

Of cause it's always good to actually have full contact or at least half power sparring. But then the question is do I want to do this at my age. I think this, can be practice alone by myself, not as effective, but learning how to step in and out faster, coordinate with the swing to attack the opponent and step back afterward. Those can be practice alone.

I don't have stick fight experience. But I am using my experience with TKD training, practice what is important only.

Also, I don't think even the first video is very useful in real life self defense. Real life is NOT like in competition that you have a big open space. You might be in a restaurant with table and chairs and people around, you cannot do wild swing, you end up hitting object along the swing before you hit the person and you might lose the stick all together. I practice CASTING to make the swing a lot more compact. I practice in confined area to get use to avoiding hitting things unintentionally. I use two hands with a 20 oz cane to make every hit I land counts. Hopefully if I land one strike, the guy is not going to recover like in the first video.


----------



## Alan0354

Too bad the editing time is over.

This is the one that I watched quite a few times. I think these two are quite good. They don't blind swing like a lot of the other videos.






I really like their footwork. Also, I think their sticks are thicker and heavier than some of the videos I saw, those all like 6oz skinny stick and they can afford to wack each other non stop and nobody drops. I remember I saw a video the two guys wacking each other from beginning till end, no defense, just keep wacking. I did not see any technique.


----------



## Hanzou

Alan0354 said:


> Too bad the editing time is over.
> 
> This is the one that I watched quite a few times. I think these two are quite good. They don't blind swing like a lot of the other videos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really like their footwork. Also, I think their sticks are thicker and heavier than some of the videos I saw, those all like 6oz skinny stick and they can afford to wack each other non stop and nobody drops. I remember I saw a video the two guys wacking each other from beginning till end, no defense, just keep wacking. I did not see any technique.



My issue with this is that if you need a cane to move around, your footwork won’t be like that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Wait, how many people have fought with a stick with any measure of skill that didn’t drill with it first?


He’s not arguing drills aren’t useful. He’s arguing that without some level of application, they are less useful.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> But the same kind of rules apply. Someone who fought with a stick would be better than someone who has just drilled.





drop bear said:


> Ten? Mabye.
> 
> That isn't the point though. There will be a lot more people who have drilled with a stick but never fought with one.
> 
> And I wouldn't really consider them trained in fighting with a stick.
> 
> So you know like this. They might think they can handle themselves. But they actually can't.


That video is garbage. Neither of those two seem to know what to do with that stick. 13 th degree black belt? They move like insects. My granny could scrap better than that.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> It depends. I mean again we don't really know. It is just assumed that drilling with a stick makes you better at it.
> 
> I have trained stick and gone at it with friends with nerf bats. And honestly I really wasn't much better off.
> 
> Coming at you fast with intent is nothing like heaven six.
> 
> Just like the judo video live stick fighting is a different animal to a drill.


Where do you find this crap? None of these people seem to know how to use a stick. Nerf bats? If you don’t know how to move then you shouldn’t bother with weapons training until you figure out where your feet are.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

gpseymour said:


> He’s not arguing drills aren’t useful. He’s arguing that without some level of application, they are less useful.


He is rude but not erudite.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> My issue with this is that if you need a cane to move around, your footwork won’t be like that.


Maybe he doesn’t need it, maybe he just carries it.


----------



## Hanzou

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Maybe he doesn’t need it, maybe he just carries it.



Which is a rather uncommon thing to do....


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> My issue with this is that if you need a cane to move around, your footwork won’t be like that.


I agree that footwork is fundamental, it is what is missing in most striking schools other than boxing.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hanzou said:


> Which is a rather uncommon thing to do....


Yes, I agree. To me, it seems a bit odd. It would actually attract my attention if there was no gait deficit.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Alan0354 said:


> Too bad the editing time is over.
> 
> This is the one that I watched quite a few times. I think these two are quite good. They don't blind swing like a lot of the other videos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really like their footwork. Also, I think their sticks are thicker and heavier than some of the videos I saw, those all like 6oz skinny stick and they can afford to wack each other non stop and nobody drops. I remember I saw a video the two guys wacking each other from beginning till end, no defense, just keep wacking. I did not see any technique.


Watch some high level saber fencing. That is what these two are trying to emulate. the lunge step is ok on a linear path but they don’t close the gap too well. When will you have this little stick with you? It seems like a bit of a waste to train like this. A Skilled grappler will just accept a hit and then drive you into the pavement. What I didn’t see was anyone using the stick to poke or lock effectively.


----------



## dvcochran

Wing Woo Gar said:


> That video is garbage. Neither of those two seem to know what to do with that stick. 13 th degree black belt? They move like insects. My granny could scrap better than that.


Ahh the ignorance of youth. We always thought we could do better than the next guy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Yes, I agree. To me, it seems a bit odd. It would actually attract my attention if there was no gait deficit.


Even for folks who need it, there is sometimes no gait deficit. Before I had my foot surgery, I looked like I was walking normally (I learned later that I wasn't, but it wasn't something you could see) unless I was in pain. I always carried a cane when traveling, because I never knew when it would be needed. So I was often walking with a cane I didn't need at that moment.


----------



## Alan0354

Hanzou said:


> My issue with this is that if you need a cane to move around, your footwork won’t be like that.


I don't need a cane to move around!!! Still doing kick boxing. It's a self defense weapon that is legal and looks normal for my age. 

I am nothing good like in the video, but it's a start to learn moving around. I don't expect the attacker will move like that either. If the attacker is that good, I am $crewed!!!


----------



## Alan0354

Wing Woo Gar said:


> That video is garbage. Neither of those two seem to know what to do with that stick. 13 th degree black belt? They move like insects. My granny could scrap better than that.


Ha ha, you said it!! I thought I was missing something.

I swear, people said you have to learn defense, blocking and all with the cane/stick. All the real fight or medium/full contact match I've seen with stick fight are mostly step in attack fast. Then when being attack, move back fast, swing a few defense swing hopefully can block the attack. I don't see anything fancy "block-counter attack....." type of fancy moves. It's seems like it's a fantasy to do all those.

This to a very big degree, is true on bare knuckle fighting. You don't do fancy blocking, turn, counter attack!!! You don't have time!!! People just parry, move, duck under. The simpler the move, the more effective. I am going on this principle, LESS IS MORE. I only practice basic 4 strikes with the stick, top two and swing to the legs two. Keep it simple, don't confuse myself.


----------



## drop bear

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Where do you find this crap? None of these people seem to know how to use a stick. Nerf bats? If you don’t know how to move then you shouldn’t bother with weapons training until you figure out where your feet are.



Dog brothers are pretty well known for one of the few weapons based environments that are realistic due to their focus on live training and contact.


----------



## drop bear

Alan0354 said:


> What is the right thing and what is the wrong thing?



The right thing would be smashing something violently with a stick until you are very strong and fast.

The wrong thing would be kata.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Alan0354 said:


> What is the right thing and what is the wrong thing?


Right thing: using the staff to increase your offensive and defensive striking range, which is a game changer in hand to hand.  The Dog Brothers and Siniwali heaven six show that with short sticks, even though one is sparring and the other is just a coordination drill.  Two ends of the continuum.

Wrong thing: dropping the staff.  A lot of staff technique attacks are meant to make the other person drop whatever they have, that's why it's called the "mother of all weapons".  Also why the single most important drill with the staff, holding on to it, especially if someone is trying to grab it.  You can drill that 3 to 1, too.  It's a lot of fun, your attackers just make sure to wear heavy gloves.

Which is why stick skills are taught to security, police, and military forces around the world to this day.  They work well enough on mobs. Would they work for a mob of BJJ goons?  Probably all too well.


----------



## Alan0354

drop bear said:


> The right thing would be smashing something violently with a stick until you are very strong and fast.
> 
> The wrong thing would be kata.


Agree 100%, I beat on the heavy bags, I swing very basic swings, 4 swings, 2 to the head, 2 to the knee, LESS IS MORE, just practice over and over with footwork stepping in attack, step out back or side to avoid being chased.

Yes, as I get stronger, I change to a heavier stick to get more power.


----------



## drop bear

Oily Dragon said:


> Right thing: using the staff to increase your offensive and defensive striking range, which is a game changer in hand to hand.  The Dog Brothers and Siniwali heaven six show that with short sticks, even though one is sparring and the other is just a coordination drill.  Two ends of the continuum.
> 
> Wrong thing: dropping the staff.  A lot of staff technique attacks are meant to make the other person drop whatever they have, that's why it's called the "mother of all weapons".  Also why the single most important drill with the staff, holding on to it, especially if someone is trying to grab it.  You can drill that 3 to 1, too.  It's a lot of fun, your attackers just make sure to wear heavy gloves.
> 
> Which is why stick skills are taught to security, police, and military forces around the world to this day.  They work well enough on mobs. Would they work for a mob of BJJ goons?  Probably all too well.



I have used asp batons on guys. I have had people use sticks and the like on me. And no they don't work well on mobs if say you are one guy getting mobbed by a bunch of guys. Rather than if you are a line of guys with bats. 

My experience is hold one end and hit them with the other. Anything much fancier than that gets the bat grabbed. 

And don't point with it.


----------



## drop bear

Alan0354 said:


> Agree 100%, I beat on the heavy bags, I swing very basic swings, 4 swings, 2 to the head, 2 to the knee, LESS IS MORE, just practice over and over with footwork stepping in attack, step out back or side to avoid being chased.
> 
> Yes, as I get stronger, I change to a heavier stick to get more power.



And look this again is a guess. You would have to go out and test it. Like I did with the nerf bats.


----------



## Oily Dragon

The issue with kata or fist sets is the trap they set for the mind, because they are a tool for the mind and body connection, and the original meaning of those sets was transmission of ideas through time to later generations.  The dance doesn't become the dancer, the dancer becomes the dance.  Dancers start with mapped routines but eventually discard them when that final barrier is broken.

Bruce Lee said it best: "The essence of fighting is the art of moving at the right time."

The only timing you can learn by yourself with a solo fist set is your own, of limited value.  Add a partner, resistance, and some chaos, and it's an entirely different kind of flying, altogether.  This is something the combat sports understand very well.


----------



## Alan0354

Hanzou said:


> Which is a rather uncommon thing to do....


That's exactly what I've been doing. You hear about older Chinese being attacked? A cane is the best legal self defense weapon. I am still exercising 7 hours a week, it's like almost 1 1/2hr, 5 days a week.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

gpseymour said:


> Even for folks who need it, there is sometimes no gait deficit. Before I had my foot surgery, I looked like I was walking normally (I learned later that I wasn't, but it wasn't something you could see) unless I was in pain. I always carried a cane when traveling, because I never knew when it would be needed. So I was often walking with a cane I didn't need at that moment.





dvcochran said:


> Ahh the ignorance of youth. We always thought we could do better than the next guy.


Youth? I’m 50, even Stevie Wonder can see that’s crap.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

gpseymour said:


> Even for folks who need it, there is sometimes no gait deficit. Before I had my foot surgery, I looked like I was walking normally (I learned later that I wasn't, but it wasn't something you could see) unless I was in pain. I always carried a cane when traveling, because I never knew when it would be needed. So I was often walking with a cane I didn't need at that moment.


Sorry, your quote got sucked into my other reply.


----------



## Hanzou

Some Kung Fu practitioner getting worked by a K1 Kickboxer in Japan;


----------



## caped crusader

Alan0354 said:


> I don't know this guy, but that's good information, I should know that, but never think this deep. When I said I put my feet on the chair to do weighted pushups, It's really not like incline press. I use my dumbbell to put space between my body and the ground because I need space for the weighted jackets. The jacket will rest on the ground if I don't have the dumbbells when I lower my body in every pushup. This is a video I did a long time ago with only one jacket of about 45lbs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the chair mostly compensate for the extra height of the dumbbell I hold onto.
> 
> I since add a second jacket and split 40lbs on the big jacket and 20lbs in the smaller thinner jacket and I wear the thinner first and the thick one on top. The video was make almost 2 years ago at the very beginning of the shutdown.
> 
> At home, I don't have a way to do decline press. I do body weight dip. I am 175lbs, so it's not exactly light weight. I could wear the 20lbs jacket, but I have to watch out my elbow. I can feel my elbow is at the limit. I used to be able to hang a 45lbs plate 10 years ago to do the dip. I just do 3 sets of 15 body weight dip now a days.
> 
> There are definitely limits on working out at home, It's not about buying equipment, it's about not making the family room looking like a gym. The looks for the house is important too. I am thinking about adding a third car garage and use it as a gym. Then I can get a cage with a bench. Now, if I want to exercise the lower pecks, I have to use this kind of twist bars:
> https://www.amazon.com/GETUPP-Practical-Shoulder-Exercise-Exerciser/dp/B087F2JBN2/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=chest+exercise+bar&qid=1636176456&qsid=144-4670265-6726520&sr=8-6&sres=B01M1B5QGD,B087F2JBN2,B075NXJR4P,B07MT36F46,B086ZDVVG4,B0065RBOWK,B087G723SR,B08L3JTVHR,B087YKM6KS,B092W21N51,B0895PVDT1,B08FFKRVRY,B08SC64K6N,B093D1C1QX,B00VI8W5FQ,B01L7791PY,B08JTWB39S,B09G9SSF5Q,B08ZN4XNNF,B08QN1FL7N
> 
> I have 30lbs, 40lbs and 50lbs bars already. I stopped doing this a few months ago as I got lazy. But after watching your video, That's about the only way to work the lower pecks.
> 
> I do pulldown with a lot of elastic bands, those elastic bands are very good, it gets very strong towards the end of the stretch. I just loop them around the chinup bar and pull down sitting on a low stepping stool. That seems to work the pecks also.
> 
> As I get older, my left shoulder started to make popping sound when I push the shoulder/deltoid. I used to do 10reps 25lbs dumbbell lateral raise, but I have to lower the weight as it pops on every move and discomfort later on. I have to lower to 17.5lbs each hand and just do 15 to 20 reps sets. This is part of the reason to use two weight jacket, I have to lift the jacket overhead to wear and I have to lift the jacket with one hand and use the other hand to move everything in place. My best military press is 50lbs each hand for 10 reps, I cannot lift and hold 60lbs jacket with one hand over my head. So I have to split into 40:20.
> 
> I use elastic bands to do incline press, but again, the left shoulder start popping so I have to keep the resistance down.
> 
> Since I added the stick fight, my weekly exercise is getting very long, a little over 7 hours a week, which is almost like 1 1/2hrs a day 5 days a week. It takes too much time to drive to the gym for weights and MA at home. Not only that, I talk a lot in the gym also. I went to a gym that was formerly Gold's Gym which is a heavy duty gym, people are serious people, lots of muscles and push heavy weights. Like you almost can count on people pushing 225lbs bench as starter. I want to go to those gym to keep myself humble, not going to those yuppie gym where benching 135lbs is good already. But you'd be surprised those musclemen also exercise their jaw muscle a lot too. We talk, we laugh!!! I usually spent 1hr working out, then 1/2hr doing jaw exercise!!! I cannot afford this after adding the stick fight regiment. I am stuck at home doing everything for now.
> 
> Too bad we all have to get old. Just less than 10 years ago, I could do 5 to 6reps 225lbs bench, before I quit last year, I could only do 185lbs.
> 
> You ever try close hands pushups? That is the index fingers and thumbs of both hands touching each other and do pushups. This concentrates the stress on triceps, not the chest. That's part of my triceps exercise. I do 3 sets of 20 every Friday. then I do 30lbs dumbbell kick back also. ( sad I used to do 35lbs easily, but too much stress on the elbows now).


I see no need to use extra weight anymore on push ups as you have issues with joints.  I honestly think you´ll get much better results doing them slowly and with better form. I used to do weighted dips but no longer use a weight belt. I think a Good TRI SET  works well..
Unweighted dips max reps
push ups on floor (I always used push up bars but two thick books will work)
DB flyes / if need be can also be done on floor (safer if alone and controls the range of motion/your shoulder)

so as you know Alan a TRI SET is done non stop one exercise after the other which is demanding and trust me you´ll not need weight vests.  I would not do that push up exercise you´re doing as you lack stability/strength in your shoulder.
Unless you are a Bodybuilding posing on a stage then i see no need to incline press. Military press neither. Side laterals are enough with Barbell or Dumbbell shrugs. I think you need some TRAP training too. Strong traps really will help with overall stability in your shoulder Girdle.

I only do Flat Barbell press for chest now(my bench is good but no decline option) , Better would be DECLINE PRESS. If you can only do one exercise Alan get a good bench that also declines, A power rack or half rack, a good Barbell and that´s it. DECLINE works the whole chest. EVERYTHING and it is much, much kinder to your shoulders. That´s all you need. Honestly.
Guys like us do not need all the exercises a Pro would do. no need at all.  DECLINES  contract the whole pecs.
Lots of studies out there proving it but look also at DORIAN YATES  Multi Mr O  he said, DECLINES better than flat or incline and less stress on joints, full range to work the pecs.

Even a FLAT bench press or push up hits the upper area too.  It´s like when guys say .."Yeah I´m building a Peak on my Biceps"  utter rubbish. regardless what curl  you do it will all contract. A so called peak is Genetic.

One last point make sure you train back too. Rear bent over laterals will help and chins are not a must either if you can´t do them. You can of course do "Band Assisted" chins & they work well. It´s a bit like the assisted machine you kneel on in the gym. Lots of videos out there showing it.
BB or DB rows
Shrugs (Traps)
rear Delt flys (rear delts upper back
A lower back exercise for erectors. deadlifts(Romanian ) if you can or Hypers on a 45% Bench

I also like Pullovers but maybe not good for your shoulders.


----------



## caped crusader

Just throw this one in there. A reverse Grip press for upper chest. Not one i like but "one man´s meat is another man`s poision"





						Reverse-Grip Bench Press Master Class
					

Perfect your technique on the reverse-grip bench press to maximize upper chest development.




					www.jimstoppani.com
				




Another one you can do with your bands or two Dumbbells, coming up from a low position.  work your upper areas and better for shoulders. I would go with this one if i was you with a DECLINE press.


----------



## caped crusader

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Youth? I’m 50, even Stevie Wonder can see that’s crap.


why discriminate and ridicule a Handicapped man? 
Is this not against the rules? 
shame on you Sir !


----------



## caped crusader

Check out @ 2:48


----------



## KunTaoKid

Hanzou said:


> This was a question asked in my other thread and I thought it warranted its own thread. There is a slight disdain for sports and competition among traditionalists within the martial arts. It even pops up in my style Brazilian Jiujitsu, despite the fact that what brought Bjj to prominence was sport and competition. There is a group of people within Bjj who dislike what competition has done to the art, and like to hammer in the idea that sport dilutes the self defense aspect of the art.
> 
> While there is some merit to that point, there is another inescapable fact; Competition and sport (particularly MMA) have kept Bjj "honest" in that it forces the style to never drift too far into having its own head up its ****. For example, after Bjj exploded on the scene via the early UFCs, numerous other grappling systems emerged to try to supplant it as the main grappling art of the emerging sport. At first, Bjj exponents (mainly the Gracies) pushed a sort of purity message and refused to embrace other grappling styles, saying that their system of grappling was superior to all others. However, after the Gracies got beat by grapplers who had cross-trained in Bjj, other Bjj schools embraced other grappling forms. Over two decades later, it would be hard to argue that Bjj isn't an overall better martial art than it was when it first exploded on the scene in the 1990s.
> 
> Beyond general MA improvement, it would be a bit silly to believe that your average MA hobbyist is a better martial artist than a professional fighter. Again, when I look into my own martial art, I look at guys like Ryan Gordon, Keenan Cornelius, JT Torres, Marcelo Garcia, Ryan Hall, etc. and recognize that they would absolutely destroy me. There are videos of competitive Bjj players who roll against entire schools and submit students in that school within a matter of minutes if not seconds. Even the black belt instructors are easily dealt with, and considering that I would struggle with the average Bjj black belt, the fact that these people are several magnitudes better than them is something to think about.
> 
> Which brings us back to the general question; Are competitive sport martial artists superior to non competitive martial artists? I simply can't see how they aren't. Beyond grappling, look at the various showcases of traditional Chinese martial artists going up against MMA and sport fighters. Universally, the traditional martial artists lose, and many of the people they lose to aren't even professional fighters. Pushing this up a notch, if Jon Jones or Khabib walked into your dojo, could your instructor beat them in a fight? Bringing this down a notch would your traditional karate instructor be able to stand toe to toe against an amateur boxer? These are questions to consider because we continue to run across people who say that since their style includes wrist locks, throws, kicks, and kata, they have an advantage over a boxer because "the boxer only has punches".
> 
> I would argue that the boxer has more than punches. They have conditioning, durability, endurance, and fighting experience.
> 
> Anyway, I'm interested in your thoughts.


Frankly non sport are better but it always depends like KunTao isn't a sport MA bc it can be insanely brutal. But when i did wrestling my old man taught me Jiu jitsu and said to do those bc he said it doesn't matter who has more points it matters who's better so me as the child i was thought eh sure and got disqualified alot but you can still do some nasty **** with sport MA


----------



## drop bear

KunTaoKid said:


> Frankly non sport are better but it always depends like KunTao isn't a sport MA bc it can be insanely brutal. But when i did wrestling my old man taught me Jiu jitsu and said to do those bc he said it doesn't matter who has more points it matters who's better so me as the child i was thought eh sure and got disqualified alot but you can still do some nasty **** with sport MA



Brutal isn't as effective as people think it is.


----------



## Alan0354

caped crusader said:


> I see no need to use extra weight anymore on push ups as you have issues with joints.  I honestly think you´ll get much better results doing them slowly and with better form. I used to do weighted dips but no longer use a weight belt. I think a Good TRI SET  works well..
> Unweighted dips max reps
> push ups on floor (I always used push up bars but two thick books will work)
> DB flyes / if need be can also be done on floor (safer if alone and controls the range of motion/your shoulder)
> 
> so as you know Alan a TRI SET is done non stop one exercise after the other which is demanding and trust me you´ll not need weight vests.  I would not do that push up exercise you´re doing as you lack stability/strength in your shoulder.
> Unless you are a Bodybuilding posing on a stage then i see no need to incline press. Military press neither. Side laterals are enough with Barbell or Dumbbell shrugs. I think you need some TRAP training too. Strong traps really will help with overall stability in your shoulder Girdle.
> 
> I only do Flat Barbell press for chest now(my bench is good but no decline option) , Better would be DECLINE PRESS. If you can only do one exercise Alan get a good bench that also declines, A power rack or half rack, a good Barbell and that´s it. DECLINE works the whole chest. EVERYTHING and it is much, much kinder to your shoulders. That´s all you need. Honestly.
> Guys like us do not need all the exercises a Pro would do. no need at all.  DECLINES  contract the whole pecs.
> Lots of studies out there proving it but look also at DORIAN YATES  Multi Mr O  he said, DECLINES better than flat or incline and less stress on joints, full range to work the pecs.
> 
> Even a FLAT bench press or push up hits the upper area too.  It´s like when guys say .."Yeah I´m building a Peak on my Biceps"  utter rubbish. regardless what curl  you do it will all contract. A so called peak is Genetic.
> 
> One last point make sure you train back too. Rear bent over laterals will help and chins are not a must either if you can´t do them. You can of course do "Band Assisted" chins & they work well. It´s a bit like the assisted machine you kneel on in the gym. Lots of videos out there showing it.
> BB or DB rows
> Shrugs (Traps)
> rear Delt flys (rear delts upper back
> A lower back exercise for erectors. deadlifts(Romanian ) if you can or Hypers on a 45% Bench
> 
> I also like Pullovers but maybe not good for your shoulders.


Thanks for the suggestions.

Decline press is hard doing at home without the bench. I have to find some ways to do this.

Do you have suggestion to improve the stability of my left shoulder, it is really the limiting factor for me. 

I want to do more than just exercise for health, not for body building, but if I can get more muscle, I would like that. That's why I use weighted jacket. I still want to push my body.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Alan0354 said:


> Thanks for the suggestions.
> 
> Decline press is hard doing at home without the bench. I have to find some ways to do this.
> 
> Do you have suggestion to improve the stability of my left shoulder, it is really the limiting factor for me.
> 
> I want to do more than just exercise for health, not for body building, but if I can get more muscle, I would like that. That's why I use weighted jacket. I still want to push my body.


What will help stabilize it depends which muscles are weak. Buy some therapy bands, and work the shoulder in all 3 directions (ignoring "down").


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

caped crusader said:


> why discriminate and ridicule a Handicapped man?
> Is this not against the rules?
> shame on you Sir !


Yeah go cry it out.


----------



## caped crusader

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Yeah go cry it out.


being blind is not a joke mate. maybe you think it is but i find your comment very distasteful to say the least.
makes we wonder what you´re like at your training.


----------



## Hanzou

caped crusader said:


> Check out @ 2:48



Really cool stuff.

Interestingly, Judo is a good example of a MA where competition rules heavily limits its methodology and actually begins to make it less effective over time.


----------



## caped crusader

Alan0354 said:


> Decline press is hard doing at home without the bench. I have to find some ways to do this.


can use Dumbbells and even one arm presses. might be a good option to concentrate on each side as you have one weak side which will probably impair your Barbell presses.



Alan0354 said:


> Do you have suggestion to improve the stability of my left shoulder, it is really the limiting factor for me.





gpseymour said:


> work the shoulder in all 3 directions


i would agree with *gpseymour . *what i like to do is a stretch with a band for shoulder flexibility bringing the band/hands over my head. I think you need to get your shoulder checked out by a physio this would be the best option. I train only front,side,rear laterals for Delts now and have no problem. It can be muscle dysbalance this can cause pain/weakness too. I actually had this years ago as my chest was more dominant. so i concentrated on upper back more. It helped. 
At a guess i think you have weak rear delts and upper back. affects shoulder posture too. 
But....at the end of the Day only a Physio/sport Doctor can tell you who has examined your shoulder.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

*REMINDER TO MEMBERS:*

Keep it civil. "Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community"

________________________________
*Gerry Seymour
MartialTalk Moderator*
@gpseymour


----------



## caped crusader

Hanzou said:


> Really cool stuff.
> 
> Interestingly, Judo is a good example of a MA where competition rules heavily limits its methodology and actually begins to make it less effective over time.


he really is outstanding. shows at the end throw how powerful it can be !


----------



## Gerry Seymour

caped crusader said:


> can use Dumbbells and even one arm presses. might be a good option to concentrate on each side as you have one weak side which will probably impair your Barbell presses.
> 
> 
> 
> i would agree with *gpseymour . *what i like to do is a stretch with a band for shoulder flexibility bringing the band/hands over my head. I think you need to get your shoulder checked out by a physio this would be the best option. I train only front,side,rear laterals for Delts now and have no problem. It can be muscle dysbalance this can cause pain/weakness too. I actually had this years ago as my chest was more dominant. so i concentrated on upper back more. It helped.
> At a guess i think you have weak rear delts and upper back. affects shoulder posture too.
> But....at the end of the Day only a Physio/sport Doctor can tell you who has examined your shoulder.


Pretty much this. You can take the scatter-gun approach and do basic exercises in all 3 directions for your shoulder, which will probably help (weakest muscles will usually develop faster), but knowing what's weak, injured, or in need of stretching will let you make progress more efficiently.


----------



## caped crusader

gpseymour said:


> Pretty much this. You can take the scatter-gun approach and do basic exercises in all 3 directions for your shoulder, which will probably help (weakest muscles will usually develop faster), but knowing what's weak, injured, or in need of stretching will let you make progress more efficiently.


yeah needs to see a Doctor/physio. no way can anyone here say for sure.
an ultrasound scan or CT scan.


----------



## dvcochran

caped crusader said:


> being blind is not a joke mate. maybe you think it is but i find your comment very distasteful to say the least.
> makes we wonder what you´re like at your training.


FWIW, I did not at all take @Wing Woo Gar 's comment that way. Rather an indirect way to infer a blind guy could see how bad the technique was. Simply trying to make a strong point. In no way was it a slap against blind people. 

For example, if a white guy and a black guy are standing in the same room in another location and someone has to go get him so he can save the world, what is the strongest descriptor you could use to describe the black guy so they know who to get? Too often people get caught up in walking around on egg shells and completely forget that common sense that is right in front of them.


----------



## caped crusader

dvcochran said:


> Too often people get caught up in walking around on egg shells and completely forget that common sense that is right in front of them.





dvcochran said:


> white guy and a black guy


maybe take your own advice this has nothing to do with black or white people. It was never mentioned by me at any time. Just to be clear on this and that you understand, blindness is a condition that can affect any race or creed.
Hope this helps


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Really cool stuff.
> 
> Interestingly, Judo is a good example of a MA where competition rules heavily limits its methodology and actually begins to make it less effective over time.


More effective at what they apply and less effective at what they don't, for sure.  Easiest way to avoid that is to compete in other rule sets.  Judoka would be welcome to compete at BJJ competitions.  Some do, and they are more well rounded as a result. 

I know this is probably obvious to some of us, but I think it needs to be said occasionally in threads like this.  My concern is that some folks will misunderstand, and think that the answer to overly focused rulesets that may lead to bad habits outside of the ruleset is less application.  Rather, it's more application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

caped crusader said:


> maybe take your own advice this has nothing to do with black or white people. It was never mentioned by me at any time. Just to be clear on this and that you understand, blindness is a condition that can affect any race or creed.
> Hope this helps


He never said it had anything to do with race. He used reference to skin color as analogy. I'm not sure how anything in his comment is all that controversial. He states it stronger than I might, but that's just personality. And nothing in his post seems triggered, so the "take your own advice" line seems a bit strong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> More effective at what they apply and less effective at what they don't, for sure.  Easiest way to avoid that is to compete in other rule sets.  Judoka would be welcome to compete at BJJ competitions.  Some do, and they are more well rounded as a result.
> 
> I know this is probably obvious to some of us, but I think it needs to be said occasionally in threads like this.  My concern is that some folks will misunderstand, and think that the answer to overly focused rulesets that may lead to bad habits outside of the ruleset is less application.  Rather, it's more application.


I think the issue is that sometimes it sounds like folks are saying any competition is bound to make people better in general. And that's only true in the area the competition supports. An overly-obvious extreme is that participating regularly in, and training for, TKD competition is unilkely to help (and might actually hurt) grappling skills. So finding a ruleset or rulesets that support what you want to develop is important - whether it's an official competition or sparring/rolling/randori in the dojo.


----------



## caped crusader

gpseymour said:


> He never said it had anything to do with race. He used reference to skin color as analogy. I'm not sure how anything in his comment is all that controversial. He states it stronger than I might, but that's just personality. And nothing in his post seems triggered, so the "take your own advice" line seems a bit strong.


sorry but i disagree. he talks about using common sense. so why use skin colour am i missing something here? the man who the joke was about is Black so he just used the black & white thing randomly ..get real will ya !


----------



## caped crusader

Maybe you Mods on here should stop cherry picking. mention the word BI and you get banned for "Homophobic" remarks. when it wasn´t and a ban !  The same guy who whined about it openly makes a clearly sick joke about a blind man and nothing is said...LOL


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> He never said it had anything to do with race. He used reference to skin color as analogy. I'm not sure how anything in his comment is all that controversial. He states it stronger than I might, but that's just personality. And nothing in his post seems triggered, so the "take your own advice" line seems a bit strong.


Well, we were talking about competition and now we're talking about race and disability.  Not because @caped crusader brought it up....


gpseymour said:


> I think the issue is that sometimes it sounds like folks are saying any competition is bound to make people better in general. And that's only true in the area the competition supports. An overly-obvious extreme is that participating regularly in, and training for, TKD competition is unilkely to help (and might actually hurt) grappling skills. So finding a ruleset or rulesets that support what you want to develop is important - whether it's an official competition or sparring/rolling/randori in the dojo.


We can safely say that competing in TKD isn't going to improve your grappling.  But I don't think this is even a hard thing to figure out.  It's not a mystery.  Will TKD competition improve my grappling?  No.  Will it improve the skills I train and then apply in TKD competition?  For sure.  

The problem isn't the ruleset, no matter how restrictive.  The problem is people trying to sell a product by exaggerating that product's benefits.  Come train in my TKD school. We compete in WTF competitions regularly... AND, we have rediscovered lost grappling techniques that I incorporate to make you an expert in grappling.  Come train at my Aikido school, where you will learn really cool, high amplitude throws and falls, and by the time your hair grows long enough to put it up in a man-bun, you'll be totally chill and at peace with the universe.... oh, and it's really effective in a fight, too.  Come train at my BJJ school, where I will also teach you the lost art of grapple-kicking. 

These are obviously extreme examples, but it works all the way down to complimentary skillsets.  A judoka who regularly competes in BJJ will see his newaza improve, which will improve his overall competency as a grappler and make him more effective within the judo ruleset as well as outside of it.  A BJJ jiu-jitiero who regularly competes in Judo or in Wrestling will see his stand-up grappling improve, which will lead him to be more effective in BJJ comps, as well as outside of them.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> More effective at what they apply and less effective at what they don't, for sure.  Easiest way to avoid that is to compete in other rule sets.  Judoka would be welcome to compete at BJJ competitions.  Some do, and they are more well rounded as a result.



Agreed, but the IJF has even forbidden Judoka from competing in MMA and BJJ competitions unless they get permission. This really has a chilling effect on the individual dojo level, forcing some dojos that rely on competition to stick doggedly to the rules even when doing free sparring.

While it sucks for Judo, it benefits BJJ because we're starting to see a small flood of former Judoka migrating over to BJJ as Judo instructors, which does nothing but enrich BJJ and make it a better martial art. For former Judoka, it allows them to practice Kano's art without all the crap stacked on top of it by an oppressive governing body. I'm all for it, and I hope the IJF continues to be complete morons going forward.



> I know this is probably obvious to some of us, but I think it needs to be said occasionally in threads like this. My concern is that some folks will misunderstand, and think that the answer to overly focused rulesets that may lead to bad habits outside of the ruleset is less application. Rather, it's more application.



Agreed.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I think the issue is that sometimes it sounds like folks are saying any competition is bound to make people better in general. And that's only true in the area the competition supports. An overly-obvious extreme is that participating regularly in, and training for, TKD competition is unilkely to help (and might actually hurt) grappling skills. So finding a ruleset or rulesets that support what you want to develop is important - whether it's an official competition or sparring/rolling/randori in the dojo.


For me, it's simply the results. Even competitive TKD practitioners have some amazing kicks, and I would argue that their kicking ability would be superior to a non-competitive TKD practitioner. If that competitive TKD practitioner went to MMA and competed even on the amateur level, I'd put them above your typical black belt martial artist who never competed. 

The thing is, we can see this in practice. In BJJ we have an elite level of practitioner, and they visit gyms, give seminars, and proceed to tap out the entire gym, including the instructors with relative ease. The top MMA fighters would literally kill local karate and kung fu instructors *easily*. 

Even below that, the competition teams in Bjj gyms tend to be the best practitioners overall. They also tend to be younger, faster, stronger, and have more free time to train, so obviously they're going to get better more quickly. Competitive purple belts can give non-competitive black belts a run for their money, if not submit them outright.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

caped crusader said:


> Maybe you Mods on here should stop cherry picking. mention the word BI and you get banned for "Homophobic" remarks. when it wasn´t and a ban !  The same guy who whined about it openly makes a clearly sick joke about a blind man and nothing is said...LOL
> View attachment 27606


Keep in mind that there are different levels of warnings we give based on points; if you get above a certain number of points, it can result in a suspension/ban. We give them based off the infraction in question, so if one person get 10 points and someone else gets 9 (or both get 9, but one already had a few points from a previous infraction that haven't expired yet), one person may be suspended while another is not.

Depending on how busy the mods are, this can take a tiny bit from when we're alerted to a remark (I happened to see this because we were alerted to a post, not specifying which one, in this thread and was reviewing the thread), as not all of us are on all the time, and we want to make sure enough of us are in agreement/discuss it before we respond. That means that depending on our schedules, we may make a decision on a report in the same day, or it may take a couple days/a week.

Lastly, we don't share results of reports except in *very* rare occasions. So unless you notice someone is gone, or someone directly tells others about a warning they received, other members will not know if you/someone else got a warning. Even if someone is gone, oftentimes people do disappear from the site for a few weeks/months/years/forever without warning before coming back, so you don't know for sure why unless they state it to you. 

Lastly, if you see something that bothers you, report it. Most of us are not reading every thread (though some are), and those that do read the thread in question probably aren't looking at it with their mod hats on.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Agreed, but the IJF has even forbidden Judoka from competing in MMA and BJJ competitions unless they get permission. This really has a chilling effect on the individual dojo level, forcing some dojos that rely on competition to stick doggedly to the rules even when doing free sparring.
> 
> While it sucks for Judo, it benefits BJJ because we're starting to see a small flood of former Judoka migrating over to BJJ as Judo instructors, which does nothing but enrich BJJ and make it a better martial art. For former Judoka, it allows them to practice Kano's art without all the crap stacked on top of it by an oppressive governing body. I'm all for it, and I hope the IJF continues to be complete morons going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.


I hadn't heard that.  Man, that's a short sighted policy, for sure.


----------



## dvcochran

caped crusader said:


> maybe take your own advice this has nothing to do with black or white people. It was never mentioned by me at any time. Just to be clear on this and that you understand, blindness is a condition that can affect any race or creed.
> Hope this helps


Totally get this. Just used it as an example, as said. 
Pretty sure everyone knows blindness is no respecter of person.


----------



## caped crusader

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Keep in mind that there are different levels of warnings we give based on points; if you get above a certain number of points, it can result in a suspension/ban. We give them based off the infraction in question, so if one person get 10 points and someone else gets 9 (or both get 9, but one already had a few points from a previous infraction that haven't expired yet), one person may be suspended while another is not.
> 
> Depending on how busy the mods are, this can take a tiny bit from when we're alerted to a remark (I happened to see this because we were alerted to a post, not specifying which one, in this thread and was reviewing the thread), as not all of us are on all the time, and we want to make sure enough of us are in agreement/discuss it before we respond. That means that depending on our schedules, we may make a decision on a report in the same day, or it may take a couple days/a week.
> 
> Lastly, we don't share results of reports except in *very* rare occasions. So unless you notice someone is gone, or someone directly tells others about a warning they received, other members will not know if you/someone else got a warning. Even if someone is gone, oftentimes people do disappear from the site for a few weeks/months/years/forever without warning before coming back, so you don't know for sure why unless they state it to you.
> 
> Lastly, if you see something that bothers you, report it. Most of us are not reading every thread (though some are), and those that do read the thread in question probably aren't looking at it with their mod hats on.


Make me a Mod..  i will be the Sheriff


----------



## Hyoho

Hanzou said:


> This was a question asked in my other thread and I thought it warranted its own thread. There is a slight disdain for sports and competition among traditionalists within the martial arts. It even pops up in my style Brazilian Jiujitsu, despite the fact that what brought Bjj to prominence was sport and competition. There is a group of people within Bjj who dislike what competition has done to the art, and like to hammer in the idea that sport dilutes the self defense aspect of the art.
> 
> While there is some merit to that point, there is another inescapable fact; Competition and sport (particularly MMA) have kept Bjj "honest" in that it forces the style to never drift too far into having its own head up its ****. For example, after Bjj exploded on the scene via the early UFCs, numerous other grappling systems emerged to try to supplant it as the main grappling art of the emerging sport. At first, Bjj exponents (mainly the Gracies) pushed a sort of purity message and refused to embrace other grappling styles, saying that their system of grappling was superior to all others. However, after the Gracies got beat by grapplers who had cross-trained in Bjj, other Bjj schools embraced other grappling forms. Over two decades later, it would be hard to argue that Bjj isn't an overall better martial art than it was when it first exploded on the scene in the 1990s.
> 
> Beyond general MA improvement, it would be a bit silly to believe that your average MA hobbyist is a better martial artist than a professional fighter. Again, when I look into my own martial art, I look at guys like Ryan Gordon, Keenan Cornelius, JT Torres, Marcelo Garcia, Ryan Hall, etc. and recognize that they would absolutely destroy me. There are videos of competitive Bjj players who roll against entire schools and submit students in that school within a matter of minutes if not seconds. Even the black belt instructors are easily dealt with, and considering that I would struggle with the average Bjj black belt, the fact that these people are several magnitudes better than them is something to think about.
> 
> Which brings us back to the general question; Are competitive sport martial artists superior to non competitive martial artists? I simply can't see how they aren't. Beyond grappling, look at the various showcases of traditional Chinese martial artists going up against MMA and sport fighters. Universally, the traditional martial artists lose, and many of the people they lose to aren't even professional fighters. Pushing this up a notch, if Jon Jones or Khabib walked into your dojo, could your instructor beat them in a fight? Bringing this down a notch would your traditional karate instructor be able to stand toe to toe against an amateur boxer? These are questions to consider because we continue to run across people who say that since their style includes wrist locks, throws, kicks, and kata, they have an advantage over a boxer because "the boxer only has punches".
> 
> I would argue that the boxer has more than punches. They have conditioning, durability, endurance, and fighting experience.
> 
> Anyway, I'm interested in your thoughts.


Well yes if you consider that in my dojo of around 55 members practicing twice weekday and all weekend would "fight off" just before competition to see who would represent on a squad. And that all members had been watched by teachers as they started out as elementary kids. and that the cream of those got into the best dojo with a possible scholarship to go with it. All are natural born fighters and many go on to win nationals as adults. It does mean that we all cant practice to varying degrees. First and foremost we all love what we do


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> We can safely say that competing in TKD isn't going to improve your grappling.  But I don't think this is even a hard thing to figure out.  It's not a mystery.  Will TKD competition improve my grappling?  No.  Will it improve the skills I train and then apply in TKD competition?  For sure.
> 
> The problem isn't the ruleset, no matter how restrictive.  The problem is people trying to sell a product by exaggerating that product's benefits.  Come train in my TKD school. We compete in WTF competitions regularly... AND, we have rediscovered lost grappling techniques that I incorporate to make you an expert in grappling.  Come train at my Aikido school, where you will learn really cool, high amplitude throws and falls, and by the time your hair grows long enough to put it up in a man-bun, you'll be totally chill and at peace with the universe.... oh, and it's really effective in a fight, too.  Come train at my BJJ school, where I will also teach you the lost art of grapple-kicking.
> 
> These are obviously extreme examples, but it works all the way down to complimentary skillsets.  A judoka who regularly competes in BJJ will see his newaza improve, which will improve his overall competency as a grappler and make him more effective within the judo ruleset as well as outside of it.  A BJJ jiu-jitiero who regularly competes in Judo or in Wrestling will see his stand-up grappling improve, which will lead him to be more effective in BJJ comps, as well as outside of them.


Yeah, not really anything in that post that contradicts anything I said.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Agreed, but the IJF has even forbidden Judoka from competing in MMA and BJJ competitions unless they get permission. This really has a chilling effect on the individual dojo level, forcing some dojos that rely on competition to stick doggedly to the rules even when doing free sparring.


If that's a real thing, it's a horrid decision, IMO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> For me, it's simply the results. Even competitive TKD practitioners have some amazing kicks, and I would argue that their kicking ability would be superior to a non-competitive TKD practitioner. If that competitive TKD practitioner went to MMA and competed even on the amateur level, I'd put them above your typical black belt martial artist who never competed.
> 
> The thing is, we can see this in practice. In BJJ we have an elite level of practitioner, and they visit gyms, give seminars, and proceed to tap out the entire gym, including the instructors with relative ease. The top MMA fighters would literally kill local karate and kung fu instructors *easily*.
> 
> Even below that, the competition teams in Bjj gyms tend to be the best practitioners overall. They also tend to be younger, faster, stronger, and have more free time to train, so obviously they're going to get better more quickly. Competitive purple belts can give non-competitive black belts a run for their money, if not submit them outright.


Yes. That's pretty much what I was trying to get at. Competition generally pushes people to improve in the areas they are competing in. And competitors are a good place to find difficult partners (those you can provide you problems, not those who are problems) for the reasons you mention.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, not really anything in that post that contradicts anything I said.


That's true.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> If that's a real thing, it's a horrid decision, IMO.



It's been happening for awhile;









						International Judo Federation Prohibits Judo Athletes To Compete in BJJ & other Grappling Competitions
					

The IJF International Judo Federation has just sent an email to all its official schools worldwide with a warning: ranked Judo athletes may not participate in other grappling competitions. The email comes from the Federation president with the attachment coming from the International Judo...




					www.bjjee.com
				












						French Judo Federation: Immediate Ban for all Judokas Teaching MMA
					

This week it was announced that the European Judo Championships , scheduled for April in Glasgow, would not take place in the Scottish city. This occurred only eight weeks before the event is due to take place following a row over a sponsorship agreement with the Ultimate Fighting Championship...




					www.bjjee.com


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Hanzou said:


> I'm all for it, and I hope the IJF continues to be complete morons going forward.


I'm not. The IJF sucks in general; part of the reason my old judo school stopped competing. But it leads ultimately to less competition, and their antiquated rules harm judo as a whole, even if they help BJJ.


----------



## Hanzou

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I'm not. The IJF sucks in general; part of the reason my old judo school stopped competing. But it leads ultimately to less competition, and their antiquated rules harm judo as a whole, even if they help BJJ.



I thoroughly enjoyed my free Judo classes at my old BJJ gym.


----------



## Alan0354

I practiced 8 months of Judo and I learn some WC. This is my opinion:

Judo definitely is very limited in today's standard but so are the TMA like WC. Let's say we compare them with the ASSUMPTION they ONLY KNOW THEIR OWN STYLE and no more(like in the older days where people did not mix MA).

I would say in point sparring where you don't hit with full force, just touching. WC will make a fool out of Judo.

BUT in real fight or full contact like in UFC, I'd put my bet on Judo. Again, you have to assume strikers do NOT know any take down defense like in the older days. Striker only have ONE chance to hit the Judo guy before the Judo grab hold of him and take him down. There is no double in my mind the striker will go flying. This means the striker has to knock the Judo guy out before the Judo guy get hold of him.

It's funny people talks as if they can hit a person and knock them out as if the opponent is standing there, let him get to optimal distance and strike. The judo guy is going to move, chances of knocking the Judo guy out in one hit is very very small. That's the end of the striker. It is really funny to hear people talk like " You come at me like this, then I just do that and beat you!!!" Like talking fight on paper, that you have all the time to think, analyze and counter. In real fight, you don't have the time. Or "if I hit you at the right distance where I can synchronize my body to punch you, I'll drop you in one punch!!". As if the opponent is going to stand there holding still waiting for you to hit him at optimal distance and wait for you to hit.

Particular for WC, they don't hit that hard if they follow the traditional style. My bet definitely on Judo. I take for granted I know how to break the fall and being thrown on the ground might not hurt me. But again, I am talking about two people that ONLY know their respective style, the striker won't know how to fall, he'll be in deep dodo!!!

Recall in UFC2, there's a Judo guy, he sure beat up the strikers. He lost to Royce Gracie.

JMHO from knowing some of both style.



LATE EDIT:

My assumption is both fighters train to the same level of skill in their respective style. Of cause an expert striker is going to beat the novice judo guy for sure. You have to match the same level skill.


----------



## caped crusader

Alan0354 said:


> My bet definitely on Judo.


nice post Alan. I know that sometimes in a fight people grab on to you if they can, just a reaction. A fight can have a grappling phase very quickly. an example i saw  a guy i knew in scotland. was a well built guy and strong. Another guy stood next to him attacked him in a bar, now i saw he knew it and was very fast and grappled the guy down between his legs. He just held the guy there had is face held and pounded his face like a hammer.
Grappling or wrestling has always been around .. as i wrote in one thread even as kids you "wrestled".  Definetly a useful skill.

Side note:  I also saw a small framed guy we called sticky in the army take down a big rugby/Tug of war guy. We were waiting to go on an early morning "Beasting" run and people were larking around before it. The Big guy who was not a bully but a bit loud was gassing off... Sticky .. we called him that cause his name was Bunn, English sticky Bunn .
quickly got him into a choke. He was into Judo before the Army.  was not a nasty fight or anything as we lived on the same floor together and both were sort of friends. Just showed skill and the Bigger guy had to submit. 
sticky was built like a match. small boned but not frail but small.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> It's been happening for awhile;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International Judo Federation Prohibits Judo Athletes To Compete in BJJ & other Grappling Competitions
> 
> 
> The IJF International Judo Federation has just sent an email to all its official schools worldwide with a warning: ranked Judo athletes may not participate in other grappling competitions. The email comes from the Federation president with the attachment coming from the International Judo...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bjjee.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> French Judo Federation: Immediate Ban for all Judokas Teaching MMA
> 
> 
> This week it was announced that the European Judo Championships , scheduled for April in Glasgow, would not take place in the Scottish city. This occurred only eight weeks before the event is due to take place following a row over a sponsorship agreement with the Ultimate Fighting Championship...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bjjee.com


Wow.


----------



## caped crusader

gpseymour said:


> Wow.


reminds me of Tomiki Aikido and the Aikikai .  this is not unusual though it´s like bodybuilders can´t compete in other organisations.


----------



## caped crusader

It´s always about Money & their organisation. Membership Fees.... etc ...etc....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Alan0354 said:


> Particular for WC, they don't hit that hard if they follow the traditional style.


The praying mantis system also has this issue. If you pull your punch back before you send your punch all the way through your opponent's body, your punch will not generate enough power compare to those punch that go through your opponent's body.

This is easy to prove. When you stand in front of a heavy bag, if you aim your punch behind the heavy bag, you will generate more power than you just aim the surface of that heavy bag.

The fast punches (such as the praying mantis 1 step 3 punches) has this issue. There is nothing wrong about this. It's just a trade off between power and speed.

When a mosquito flies in front of you and you try to use both hand to smash it, you may think about speed more than power at that moment. But to push a car, the power is more important than speed.

In the following clips, you can see his punches are not as fast as the WC chain punches, but when he punches, his fist, arm, body, and back shoulder all form a perfect straight line. That give him a chance to generate the maximum punch power with his body structure.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Alan0354 said:


> in point sparring where you don't hit with full force,


It's so funny that the more that you do "point sparring", the less that you will understand the "power generation".

This is the main issue for the striking art. There is no solution for this.


----------



## caped crusader

I like it here learning also about other styles from say china. anyone know Choy Lay Fut?  long swinging punches? I saw it one time and tried it but just most chinese styles are too much fancy stuff for me. apart from wing chun.


----------



## Alan0354

caped crusader said:


> nice post Alan. I know that sometimes in a fight people grab on to you if they can, just a reaction. A fight can have a grappling phase very quickly. an example i saw  a guy i knew in scotland. was a well built guy and strong. Another guy stood next to him attacked him in a bar, now i saw he knew it and was very fast and grappled the guy down between his legs. He just held the guy there had is face held and pounded his face like a hammer.
> Grappling or wrestling has always been around .. as i wrote in one thread even as kids you "wrestled".  Definetly a useful skill.
> 
> Side note:  I also saw a small framed guy we called sticky in the army take down a big rugby/Tug of war guy. We were waiting to go on an early morning "Beasting" run and people were larking around before it. The Big guy who was not a bully but a bit loud was gassing off... Sticky .. we called him that cause his name was Bunn, English sticky Bunn .
> quickly got him into a choke. He was into Judo before the Army.  was not a nasty fight or anything as we lived on the same floor together and both were sort of friends. Just showed skill and the Bigger guy had to submit.
> sticky was built like a match. small boned but not frail but small.





caped crusader said:


> nice post Alan. I know that sometimes in a fight people grab on to you if they can, just a reaction. A fight can have a grappling phase very quickly. an example i saw  a guy i knew in scotland. was a well built guy and strong. Another guy stood next to him attacked him in a bar, now i saw he knew it and was very fast and grappled the guy down between his legs. He just held the guy there had is face held and pounded his face like a hammer.
> Grappling or wrestling has always been around .. as i wrote in one thread even as kids you "wrestled".  Definetly a useful skill.
> 
> Side note:  I also saw a small framed guy we called sticky in the army take down a big rugby/Tug of war guy. We were waiting to go on an early morning "Beasting" run and people were larking around before it. The Big guy who was not a bully but a bit loud was gassing off... Sticky .. we called him that cause his name was Bunn, English sticky Bunn .
> quickly got him into a choke. He was into Judo before the Army.  was not a nasty fight or anything as we lived on the same floor together and both were sort of friends. Just showed skill and the Bigger guy had to submit.
> sticky was built like a match. small boned but not frail but small.


I edited my post, I assume the two guys are at the same skill level. Of cause in real life, you can have one beginner and one expert, or one talented and one dummy. There's no way to compare like that. 

Like I was giving example the two guys that qualified to go into the octagon already.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

caped crusader said:


> most chinese styles are too much fancy stuff for me. apart from wing chun.


Those fancy stuff may not be used in fighting, but are used to train your body to achieve certain flexibility.


----------



## Alan0354

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's so funny that the more that you do "point sparring", the less that you will understand the "power generation".
> 
> This is the main issue for the striking art. There is no solution for this.


Point sparring is still a whole lot better than doing forms and two people drills.

I don't want to do full contact stuffs, I value my brain, I still have electronics to design, physics to study.

You get power by punching heavy bags, no other way around this. I hang two heavy bags, I hit one, turn and hit the other, let the bags move so when I turn, I have to acquire the distance to hit. Bags will move quite a bit if you combine punching and kicking. That's when you learn dynamically acquire distance and angle.

Those long soft bags that drag on the floor or have people holding the bag is useless. You don't get to learn in the moving situation.


----------



## Hanzou

Alan0354 said:


> I practiced 8 months of Judo and I learn some WC. This is my opinion:
> 
> Judo definitely is very limited in today's standard but so are the TMA like WC. Let's say we compare them with the ASSUMPTION they ONLY KNOW THEIR OWN STYLE and no more(like in the older days where people did not mix MA).
> 
> I would say in point sparring where you don't hit with full force, just touching. WC will make a fool out of Judo.
> 
> BUT in real fight or full contact like in UFC, I'd put my bet on Judo. Again, you have to assume strikers do NOT know any take down defense like in the older days. Striker only have ONE chance to hit the Judo guy before the Judo grab hold of him and take him down. There is no double in my mind the striker will go flying. This means the striker has to knock the Judo guy out before the Judo guy get hold of him.
> 
> It's funny people talks as if they can hit a person and knock them out as if the opponent is standing there, let him get to optimal distance and strike. The judo guy is going to move, chances of knocking the Judo guy out in one hit is very very small. That's the end of the striker. It is really funny to hear people talk like " You come at me like this, then I just do that and beat you!!!" Like talking fight on paper, that you have all the time to think, analyze and counter. In real fight, you don't have the time. Or "if I hit you at the right distance where I can synchronize my body to punch you, I'll drop you in one punch!!". As if the opponent is going to stand there holding still waiting for you to hit him at optimal distance and wait for you to hit.
> 
> Particular for WC, they don't hit that hard if they follow the traditional style. My bet definitely on Judo. I take for granted I know how to break the fall and being thrown on the ground might not hurt me. But again, I am talking about two people that ONLY know their respective style, the striker won't know how to fall, he'll be in deep dodo!!!
> 
> Recall in UFC2, there's a Judo guy, he sure beat up the strikers. He lost to Royce Gracie.
> 
> JMHO from knowing some of both style.
> 
> 
> 
> LATE EDIT:
> 
> My assumption is both fighters train to the same level of skill in their respective style. Of cause an expert striker is going to beat the novice judo guy for sure. You have to match the same level skill.



This is assuming a lot of things. If you're talking about classic Judo, I can buy this. If you're talking about modern Judo where people aren't being taught more simple takedowns like single and double legs, the Judoka is going to run into some issues in the self defense realm. Interestingly, it's the same issues Judoka have run into in MMA realm. For starters, you're going to need a high level Judoka to pull off even the most basic throw against a resisting opponent not in a gi. If you're a few years in Judo and going against someone wearing a t-shirt, good luck. If you look at self defense-based BJJ, collar and sleeve grips aren't used. It's almost entirely body locks. If you look at competitive no-gi  BJJ and MMA, they use wrestling instead. There's a reason for that.

Another issue that you run into here in the states is if you're fighting a collegiate or even HS wrestler, a former football player, or someone who has a significant size advantage over you; The wrestler is going to give you significant problems because they're more than likely a better grappler than you are, even if you're a black belt. Despite Judo's marketing, someone with a significant size advantage is also going to pose a problem if they aren't wearing significant clothing material.

Let's say you're successful and you manage to throw them, there's this belief that if you toss someone onto concrete, it'll knock someone out or even kill them. That's definitely possible, but it's also very possible that the throw/takedown doesn't knock them out. You can see this here in multiple cases where wrestling is being used for self defense, and people are slammed into concrete and they bounce right back up and attack the wrestler again;






Don't get me wrong, Judo has its benefits. However, I believe that its consistent limitations in the grappling realm have hampered its overall effectiveness. The lack of no-gi, leglocks, leg attacks, shoulder attacks, wrist locks, Guard, and other stuff limit its self defense effectiveness overall.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> The lack of no-gi, leglocks, leg attacks, shoulder attacks, wrist locks, Guard, and other stuff limit its self defense effectiveness overall.


Agree with you on this. To switch from gi to no-gi is not an easy task. When I suggest no-gi training in a Judo forum, everybody in that forum was mad at me and treated me as an anti-Judo guy.

Besides the no-gi issue, if one doesn't train his throwing skill in a fist flying environment, his throwing skill will not be realistic.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree with you on this. To switch from gi to no-gi is not an easy task. When I suggest no-gi training in a Judo forum, everybody in that forum was mad at me and treated me as an anti-Judo guy.



That really doesn't surprise me one bit.


----------



## Alan0354

Hanzou said:


> This is assuming a lot of things. If you're talking about classic Judo, I can buy this. If you're talking about modern Judo where people aren't being taught more simple takedowns like single and double legs, the Judoka is going to run into some issues in the self defense realm. Interestingly, it's the same issues Judoka have run into in MMA realm. For starters, you're going to need a high level Judoka to pull off even the most basic throw against a resisting opponent not in a gi. If you're a few years in Judo and going against someone wearing a t-shirt, good luck. If you look at self defense-based BJJ, collar and sleeve grips aren't used. It's almost entirely body locks. If you look at competitive no-gi  BJJ and MMA, they use wrestling instead. There's a reason for that.
> 
> Another issue that you run into here in the states is if you're fighting a collegiate or even HS wrestler, a former football player, or someone who has a significant size advantage over you; The wrestler is going to give you significant problems because they're more than likely a better grappler than you are, even if you're a black belt. Despite Judo's marketing, someone with a significant size advantage is also going to pose a problem if they aren't wearing significant clothing material.
> 
> Let's say you're successful and you manage to throw them, there's this belief that if you toss someone onto concrete, it'll knock someone out or even kill them. That's definitely possible, but it's also very possible that the throw/takedown doesn't knock them out. You can see this here in multiple cases where wrestling is being used for self defense, and people are slammed into concrete and they bounce right back up and attack the wrestler again;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, Judo has its benefits. However, I believe that its consistent limitations in the grappling realm have hampered its overall effectiveness. The lack of no-gi, leglocks, leg attacks, shoulder attacks, wrist locks, Guard, and other stuff limit its self defense effectiveness overall.


My post was responding to the few previous posts saying Judo is not that good. I am only saying that it's not that bad if compare to TCMA that are striking only.

Wrestling and BJJ are on the* TOP *of the food chain of fighting arts, you don't talk about them in the same breath with the lower ones that are swimming close to the bottom. If I were 40 years younger, I would learn wrestling or BJJ together with Mauythai, forget TKD or other TMA. Some Judo is good for falling at old age, it is valuable.

You can still do something without the gi in Judo, limited, but you still can. You can still grab the person and do hip throw, or trip them backwards. I forgot all the names already.


----------



## caped crusader

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Those fancy stuff may not be used in fighting, but are used to train your body to achieve certain flexibility.


Ok.


----------



## Hanzou

Alan0354 said:


> My post was responding to the few previous posts saying Judo is not that good. I am only saying that it's not that bad if compare to TCMA that are striking only.
> 
> Wrestling and BJJ are on the* TOP *of the food chain of fighting arts, you don't talk about them in the same breath with the lower ones that are swimming close to the bottom.



Yeah, like I said, I'm not disparaging Judo at all, it has its place (though its kind of interchangeable with wrestling). However, their rules have really neutered the MA, and that's an example of how competition can ruin a perfectly legit martial art. Judo is becoming a shell of its true self, and a lot of Judoka are starting to feel it. Lucky for them, Bjj welcomes them and their skills with open arms. 



Alan0354 said:


> You can still do something without the gi in Judo, limited, but you still can. You can still grab the person and do hip throw, or trip them backwards. I forgot all the names already.



Hip throws are questionable in SD situations. I was always taught to avoid them unless absolutely necessary. With the trip backwards, are you talking about Osto Gari? That's a solid, and low risk takedown that can lead directly to an armbar. I think that's just fine for self defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

caped crusader said:


> I like it here learning also about other styles from say china. anyone know Choy Lay Fut?  long swinging punches? I saw it one time and tried it but just most chinese styles are too much fancy stuff for me. apart from wing chun.


In general, if you want to ask something this far off-topic from the thread, you'll get more views and replies (and divert the existing thread less) by posting a new thread.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Alan0354 said:


> Point sparring is still a whole lot better than doing forms and two people drills.
> 
> I don't want to do full contact stuffs, I value my brain, I still have electronics to design, physics to study.
> 
> You get power by punching heavy bags, no other way around this. I hang two heavy bags, I hit one, turn and hit the other, let the bags move so when I turn, I have to acquire the distance to hit. Bags will move quite a bit if you combine punching and kicking. That's when you learn dynamically acquire distance and angle.
> 
> Those long soft bags that drag on the floor or have people holding the bag is useless. You don't get to learn in the moving situation.


Some kinds of sparring can actually create bad habits, and it'd be arguable whether those habits are better or worse than never sparring. I've had multiple students come to me with a "tag and back away" approach to sparring, where as soon as they were able to make some contact (even if it was at the extreme end of their reach, so no power possible), they'd back off and wait for the response. 

This goes to Steve's point about mixing up the rulesets. Point sparring has some definite benefits. By itself, it has distinct drawbacks that need to be offset somewhere else in training. This is true of pretty much all training elements and rulesets - they all have some sort of compromise that can be offset in training to varying degrees.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree with you on this. To switch from gi to no-gi is not an easy task. When I suggest no-gi training in a Judo forum, everybody in that forum was mad at me and treated me as an anti-Judo guy.
> 
> Besides the no-gi issue, if one doesn't train his throwing skill in a fist flying environment, his throwing skill will not be realistic.


It might be that those folks are only really interested in training for Judo competition, in which case the no-gi training has limited value.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Alan0354 said:


> My post was responding to the few previous posts saying Judo is not that good. I am only saying that it's not that bad if compare to TCMA that are striking only.
> 
> Wrestling and BJJ are on the* TOP *of the food chain of fighting arts, you don't talk about them in the same breath with the lower ones that are swimming close to the bottom. If I were 40 years younger, I would learn wrestling or BJJ together with Mauythai, forget TKD or other TMA. Some Judo is good for falling at old age, it is valuable.
> 
> You can still do something without the gi in Judo, limited, but you still can. You can still grab the person and do hip throw, or trip them backwards. I forgot all the names already.


You can do a large amount of Judo without a gi (for either you or your opponent), but it needs training, like KFW suggested. The Judo that is contained in NGA is typically performed without relying directly on the clothing, except in a couple of cases, where even a sturdy t-shirt would serve.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> It might be that those folks are only really interested in training for Judo competition, in which case the no-gi training has limited value.



That, but also no-gi grips brings Judo VERY close to wrestling.


----------



## Alan0354

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, like I said, I'm not disparaging Judo at all, it has its place (though its kind of interchangeable with wrestling). However, their rules have really neutered the MA, and that's an example of how competition can ruin a perfectly legit martial art. Judo is becoming a shell of its true self, and a lot of Judoka are starting to feel it. Lucky for them, Bjj welcomes them and their skills with open arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Hip throws are questionable in SD situations. I was always taught to avoid them unless absolutely necessary. With the trip backwards, are you talking about *Osto Gari*? That's a solid, and low risk takedown that can lead directly to an armbar. I think that's just fine for self defense.


I think so, it's been 56 years already. Is it pronounced Or-so-to-Gari? There are also leg sweep. Also there is shoulder throw.....Something Ip-pon.......whatever. It's been so long. If you shoot the opponent, wrap your arms around them, hip throw is not out of the question. You shoot, you get so close to the guy, he can no longer strike you effectively. Then you can go for hip throw and shoulder throw. It's not impossible.

The weak point of most striking TMA is if you quickly get very close to them, all the kicks and punches are useless. If they don't know take down defense, they'll be in trouble.

No, I would NOT recommend Judo be the main self defense training, it's better than nothing.


----------



## Alan0354

Correct me if I am wrong, it's NOT a hard transition from Judo to learn wrestling and BJJ. We already are rolling on the ground already. Judo just has too many restriction only. So anyone that learn Judo should have an easier time to transition to wrestling and BJJ.

I remember I saw a woman Olympic Judo Champion went into MMA fight and beat a famous BJJ fighter in some MMA fighting(not UFC). She was stronger and out muscle the BJJ and won in the first round. Of cause I am sure she learn BJJ or wrestling, not just Judo. Also I remember a Judo guy beat all the strikers easily in UFC2, but he lost to Royce Gracie. Judo might not be effective, but I don't think it's chop meat.


----------



## Hanzou

Alan0354 said:


> I think so, it's been 56 years already. Is it pronounced Or-so-to-Gari? There are also leg sweep. Also there is shoulder throw.....Something Ip-pon.......whatever. It's been so long. If you shoot the opponent, wrap your arms around them, hip throw is not out of the question. You shoot, you get so close to the guy, he can no longer strike you effectively. Then you can go for hip throw and shoulder throw. It's not impossible.


My Japanese is rusty, but I think you're talking about Ippon Seionage (sp?). Again, if you can pull those off, that's great. I was just always taught that any move that requires your back to be turned to your opponent is a liability. Also hip and shoulder throws can be tricky to pull off, and if you mess up, you're WIDE open to get countered.


Alan0354 said:


> The weak point of most striking TMA is if you quickly get very close to them, all the kicks and punches are useless. If they don't know take down defense, they'll be in trouble.
> 
> No, I would NOT recommend Judo be the main self defense training, it's better than nothing.



No argument there.



Alan0354 said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, it's NOT a hard transition from Judo to learn wrestling and BJJ. We already are rolling on the ground already. Judo just has too many restriction only. So anyone that learn Judo should have an easier time to transition to wrestling and BJJ.
> 
> I remember I saw a woman Olympic Judo Champion went into MMA fight and beat a famous BJJ fighter in some MMA fighting(not UFC). She was stronger and out muscle the BJJ and won in the first round. Of cause I am sure she learn BJJ or wrestling, not just Judo. Also I remember a Judo guy beat all the strikers easily in UFC2, but he lost to Royce Gracie. Judo might not be effective, but I don't think it's chop meat.



You're certainly not wrong, and no, Judoka who cross train into BJJ do just fine. In fact, as all individuals who have grappling experience entering BJJ, they'll have an advantage over a white belt with no grappling experience, especially in regards to gi-based takedowns and throwing, and gi-based competitions. Hence why it's such a huge benefit for them to be entering into BJJ gyms, because eventually they become BJJ instructors and bring their knowledge of Tachiwaza with them.

Again, Judoka aren't dumb. They see what's happening, and they hate it as much as anyone else.

As for the Olympian who did well in MMA, that was Rhonda Rousey. She did fine until people figured out her gameplan (she was pretty one-note) and eventually obliterated her.

The issue is as time continues, you're going to see less and less Judoka entering MMA and BJJ competitions, and Judo is going to become an insular sport with little crossover appeal. It'll be a sport for people who just want to do Judo, not a sport for people who want to be better grapplers, or even for self defense.


----------



## Alan0354

Hanzou said:


> My Japanese is rusty, but I think you're talking about Ippon Seionage (sp?). Again, if you can pull those off, that's great. I was just always taught that any move that requires your back to be turned to your opponent is a liability. Also hip and shoulder throws can be tricky to pull off, and if you mess up, you're WIDE open to get countered.
> 
> 
> No argument there.
> 
> 
> 
> You're certainly not wrong, and no, Judoka who cross train into BJJ do just fine. In fact, as all individuals who have grappling experience entering BJJ, they'll have an advantage over a white belt with no grappling experience, especially in regards to gi-based takedowns and throwing, and gi-based competitions. Hence why it's such a huge benefit for them to be entering into BJJ gyms, because eventually they become BJJ instructors and bring their knowledge of Tachiwaza with them.
> 
> Again, Judoka aren't dumb. They see what's happening, and they hate it as much as anyone else.
> 
> As for the Olympian who did well in MMA, that was Rhonda Rousey. She did fine until people figured out her gameplan (she was pretty one-note) and eventually obliterated her.
> 
> The issue is as time continues, you're going to see less and less Judoka entering MMA and BJJ competitions, and Judo is going to become an insular sport with little crossover appeal. It'll be a sport for people who just want to do Judo, not a sport for people who want to be better grapplers, or even for self defense.


It is not Rhonda Rousey, she's younger, in more recent years. Too bad I deleted it already. It was impressive, she's strong( in muscle), she out muscle the other girl. It's not UFC.

I think I am going to stay away from the names of the Judo throws, I was just a kid, like 14 or 15 years old at the time.


----------



## drop bear

Alan0354 said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, it's NOT a hard transition from Judo to learn wrestling and BJJ. We already are rolling on the ground already. Judo just has too many restriction only. So anyone that learn Judo should have an easier time to transition to wrestling and BJJ.
> 
> I remember I saw a woman Olympic Judo Champion went into MMA fight and beat a famous BJJ fighter in some MMA fighting(not UFC). She was stronger and out muscle the BJJ and won in the first round. Of cause I am sure she learn BJJ or wrestling, not just Judo. Also I remember a Judo guy beat all the strikers easily in UFC2, but he lost to Royce Gracie. Judo might not be effective, but I don't think it's chop meat.



One of our students beat a Judo Olympian. She had trained for about 3 years.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree with you on this. To switch from gi to no-gi is not an easy task. When I suggest no-gi training in a Judo forum, everybody in that forum was mad at me and treated me as an anti-Judo guy.
> 
> Besides the no-gi issue, if one doesn't train his throwing skill in a fist flying environment, his throwing skill will not be realistic.


The thing is, judo is a sport.  Sports have rules and uniforms,  Sometimes, rules, and thus techniques, take the uniform into consideration.  So, no gi judo will prevent a number of techniques from being practical as they rely on (and were designed for) grabbing the gi to be most effective.  

Likewise, sumo wrestlers use the opponent's padded "belt" to grab and execute many techniques.  _It is integral to the sport_.  Without this, the sport changes a lot, and probably be less interesting to watch.  

Consider no bunt baseball, no lateral football or no dunk basketball.  The game changes and the sport suffers.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

isshinryuronin said:


> The thing is, judo is a sport.  Sports have rules and uniforms,


Even if you have jacket on, when you train a throw, you still don't need to depend on jacket. If you depend on your jacket on the day 1, you will develop a habit that's hard to remove. Also if you assume you have to deal with punches, your basic training will include "arm wrap".


----------



## Oily Dragon

Let's face facts.

Few of us are at this level, right now.

SO why are you arguing.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

dvcochran said:


> FWIW, I did not at all take @Wing Woo Gar 's comment that way. Rather an indirect way to infer a blind guy could see how bad the technique was. Simply trying to make a strong point. In no way was it a slap against blind people.
> 
> For example, if a white guy and a black guy are standing in the same room in another location and someone has to go get him so he can save the world, what is the strongest descriptor you could use to describe the black guy so they know who to get? Too often people get caught up in walking around on egg shells and completely forget that common sense that is right in front of them.


Thank you very much!


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

caped crusader said:


> maybe take your own advice this has nothing to do with black or white people. It was never mentioned by me at any time. Just to be clear on this and that you understand, blindness is a condition that can affect any race or creed.
> Hope this helps


It had nothing to do with blind people, much the same way your response has nothing to do with logic.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

caped crusader said:


> being blind is not a joke mate. maybe you think it is but i find your comment very distasteful to say the least.
> makes we wonder what you´re like at your training.





caped crusader said:


> being blind is not a joke mate. maybe you think it is but i find your comment very distasteful to say the least.
> makes we wonder what you´re like at your training.


I’m totally Cobra Kai! Strike hard, Strike fast, all that jazz.


----------



## caped crusader

gpseymour said:


> In general, if you want to ask something this far off-topic from the thread, you'll get more views and replies (and divert the existing thread less) by posting a new thread.


yeah just did not want to start new threads every question. seems pointless to me.
I am the spirit of Sgt Barnes


----------



## caped crusader

isshinryuronin said:


> The thing is, judo is a sport.  Sports have rules and uniforms,  Sometimes, rules, and thus techniques, take the uniform into consideration.  So, no gi judo will prevent a number of techniques from being practical as they rely on (and were designed for) grabbing the gi to be most effective.
> 
> Likewise, sumo wrestlers use the opponent's padded "belt" to grab and execute many techniques.  _It is integral to the sport_.  Without this, the sport changes a lot, and probably be less interesting to watch.
> 
> Consider no bunt baseball, no lateral football or no dunk basketball.  The game changes and the sport suffers.


i think it´s also got a lot to do with Jigaro Kano´s philosophy too, remember he was an educator. he wanted it to be tought in schools..Universities. A way.. "Do" a path of moral education and respect....blah...blah....you get the point.
Maybe the Kodokan wants to keep this philosophy.
some high ranking Judoka embrace cross teaching with BJJ and no GI.
Neil Adams trains no GI  look him up a British legend. interacts a lot with BJJ


----------



## caped crusader

was my Boyhood hero !




as a young man he beat the Japanese to win Gold. A master !


----------



## Hanzou

isshinryuronin said:


> The thing is, judo is a sport.  Sports have rules and uniforms,  Sometimes, rules, and thus techniques, take the uniform into consideration.  So, no gi judo will prevent a number of techniques from being practical as they rely on (and were designed for) grabbing the gi to be most effective.
> 
> Likewise, sumo wrestlers use the opponent's padded "belt" to grab and execute many techniques.  _It is integral to the sport_.  Without this, the sport changes a lot, and probably be less interesting to watch.
> 
> Consider no bunt baseball, no lateral football or no dunk basketball.  The game changes and the sport suffers.



Judo isn't just a sport. It's also a martial art, and supposed to be a form of self defense.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Hanzou said:


> Judo isn't just a sport. It's also a martial art, and supposed to be a form of self defense.


It's a floor wax and a dessert topping, too!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Judo isn't just a sport. It's also a martial art, and supposed to be a form of self defense.


What I don't understand is why would anybody want to treat MA as sport for his entire life?

I don't mind to compete on wrestling sport without using my kicking/punching skill. But I definite don't want to stop training my kicking/punching skill just because the wrestling sport doesn't use it.


----------



## Alan0354

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What I don't understand is why would anybody want to treat MA as sport for his entire life?
> 
> I don't mind to compete on wrestling sport without using my kicking/punching skill. But I definite don't want to stop training my kicking/punching skill just because the wrestling sport doesn't use it.


That's how Judo is, you want to punch and kick, you have to go learn something else on top of Judo or forget Judo.

That's the reason we all here......talking whether Judo is useful as MA. Honestly, if I have to put in effort to learn, Judo is NOT one to learn. But I also say there is some usefulness of Judo in fighting as I posted already.

Like I said, in point sparring, striking CMA can make a fool out of Judo, but in real fight, for both at the same skill level, my bet still on Judo.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What I don't understand is why would anybody want to treat MA as sport for his entire life?


Fortunately, there is no requirement for you to understand why other people do something. Which is good, because there are tons of things people do that make me scratch my head.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What I don't understand is why would anybody want to treat MA as sport for his entire life?
> 
> I don't mind to compete on wrestling sport without using my kicking/punching skill. But I definite don't want to stop training my kicking/punching skill just because the wrestling sport doesn't use it.


Not everyone who gets into a MA is in it for life. I've met former world-class competitors who no longer train. They were in it for the sport, and when they couldn't compete, those who weren't interested in teaching went on to something else.


----------



## Alan0354

gpseymour said:


> Not everyone who gets into a MA is in it for life. I've met former world-class competitors who no longer train. They were in it for the sport, and when they couldn't compete, those who weren't interested in teaching went on to something else.


For me, it's more like aerobics for health. I hate running, this is my aerobics. Honestly, for years, I don't even think about this move is for what, just went through the motion and get my heart rate up. Only lately after I got into stick fight, then I started to think again.

Too bad a world class competitor dropped this like a rock. They can get out of shape and have all sort of health issue when they get old, just like the rest of the couch potatoes!! It's better to keep a steady paste rather than go crazy for a few years then just drop it because they feel burned out.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Alan0354 said:


> For me, it's more like aerobics for health. I hate running, this is my aerobics. Honestly, for years, I don't even think about this move is for what, just went through the motion and get my heart rate up. Only lately after I got into stick fight, then I started to think again.
> 
> Too bad a world class competitor dropped this like a rock. They can get out of shape and have all sort of health issue when they get old, just like the rest of the couch potatoes!! It's better to keep a steady paste rather than go crazy for a few years then just drop it because they feel burned out.


We were talking about this in another thread, but that's what happens to a lot of sumo wrestlers when they retire. They either get really skinny/in shape since they no longer have to eat so much but continue to stay fit. Or they stop, and end up with health issues.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> We were talking about this in another thread, but that's what happens to a lot of sumo wrestlers when they retire. They either get really skinny/in shape since they no longer have to eat so much but continue to stay fit. Or they stop, and end up with health issues.


I don't think it should shock anyone that your intake has to change when your activity level does. But apparently it does.


----------



## Alan0354

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't think it should shock anyone that your intake has to change when your activity level does. But apparently it does.


I am doing extras lately adding the stick fight, I am happy I lost 10lbs without changing my diet. But I don't plan to keep this up for good, just so I can achieve to a certain point and I plan to drop off. I don't want to kill myself over it, but I am not looking forward to gaining the weight back!!!


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What I don't understand is why would anybody want to treat MA as sport for his entire life?



Some people prefer the athletic side of the martial arts. I know plenty of guys who did competitive BJJ and MMA and are now coaches. I've even gotten to corner a few MMA bouts, and it was a great experience.

Some people love that aspect of MA training, because you're constantly applying martial arts in a live environment instead of constantly training for some boogeyman to give you a wedgie in a dark alley.


----------



## Hanzou

caped crusader said:


> was my Boyhood hero !



I respect the hell out of Neil, but I really don't see BJJ utilizing Judo for standup grappling on the level he's talking about. Its simply going to be wrestling. Wrestling simply blends in better with BJJ's open technique philosophy. Maybe in competitive gi-based BJJ you'll see some Judo throwing techniques, but even there, wrestling (and the guard pull) will dominate.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> I respect the hell out of Neil, but I really don't see BJJ utilizing Judo for standup grappling on the level he's talking about. Its simply going to be wrestling. Wrestling simply blends in better with BJJ's open technique philosophy. Maybe in competitive gi-based BJJ you'll see some Judo throwing techniques, but even there, wrestling (and the guard pull) will dominate.



And of course wrestling does judo throws.


----------



## Ugh

Yup. You cannot learn how to fight without exposing yourself to pressure. Sport based arts tend to do that more often.

Most of everything else he judges an art by how much the instructors go on about "discipline" and "respect."

Yeah, because when I'm potentially fighting for my life, the ONE trait I'm gonna need more than anything is to respect the person who might try to KILL me.


----------



## drop bear

Ugh said:


> Yup. You cannot learn how to fight without exposing yourself to pressure. Sport based arts tend to do that more often.
> 
> Most of everything else he judges an art by how much the instructors go on about "discipline" and "respect."
> 
> Yeah, because when I'm potentially fighting for my life, the ONE trait I'm gonna need more than anything is to respect the person who might try to KILL me.



You kind of need a bit of something like respect and discipline to be able to work with people in that pressure dynamic as well.

Being cool hand Luke while you are doing kata is a bit easier than being cool when some guy is beating you up.

This is a drill called the shark tank.





And it is as much a mental crucible as it is a physical one.


----------



## Ugh

drop bear said:


> You kind of need a bit of something like respect and discipline to be able to work with people in that pressure dynamic as well.
> 
> Being cool hand Luke while you are doing kata is a bit easier than being cool when some guy is beating you up.
> 
> This is a drill called the shark tank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it is as much a mental crucible as it is a physical one.


That's the only time I see it as important.. in training.

Outside of training, the mask comes off whenever possible.


----------



## Alan0354

caped crusader said:


> Just throw this one in there. A reverse Grip press for upper chest. Not one i like but "one man´s meat is another man`s poision"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reverse-Grip Bench Press Master Class
> 
> 
> Perfect your technique on the reverse-grip bench press to maximize upper chest development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jimstoppani.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one you can do with your bands or two Dumbbells, coming up from a low position.  work your upper areas and better for shoulders. I would go with this one if i was you with a DECLINE press.


I just bought this and see whether I can do decline press.
Amazon.com: GrowingBean Bench Press Resistance Bands-Adjustable Chest and Shoulder Workout Bands with Handles Bodybuilding Home Gym Training Equipment Multiple Training Methods, 152lbs : Sports & Outdoors

I do body weight dip, I do first set of 20, then 15, then like 13 (as much as I can do). I am 175lbs, does this work on lower pecks?


----------

