# Fantasy Martial Arts



## KPM (Jul 23, 2017)

Good article here!

http://rackemannwingchun.com.au/spot-fantasy-martial-art1/


----------



## LFJ (Jul 23, 2017)

KPM said:


> Good article here!
> 
> How to spot a Fantasy Martial Art - Rackemann Wing Chun



The rest of it is probably fine, but the first point about forms training is ignorant.


----------



## Headhunter (Jul 23, 2017)

Wouldn't call it good at all tbh


----------



## jobo (Jul 23, 2017)

KPM said:


> Good article here!
> 
> How to spot a Fantasy Martial Art - Rackemann Wing Chun


 ok its yet another of those guys who have established their own martial art, rubbishing traditional martials as a marketing tool


----------



## LFJ (Jul 23, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Wouldn't call it good at all tbh





jobo said:


> ok its yet another of those guys who have established their own martial art, rubbishing traditional martials as a marketing tool



Figured as much. I didn't bother reading after the first point was bashing training the author obviously has no understanding of.


----------



## Headhunter (Jul 23, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Figured as much. I didn't bother reading after the first point was bashing training the author obviously has no understanding of.


Yep just seems like a ufc fanboy who did 1 or 2 karate classes then decided to hate on it. That's the vibe I got


----------



## KPM (Jul 23, 2017)

Clearly you guys didn't even bother to read the whole article!


----------



## jobo (Jul 23, 2017)

KPM said:


> Clearly you guys didn't even bother to read the whole article!


i did, what do you think I missed


----------



## LFJ (Jul 23, 2017)

jobo said:


> i did, what do you think I missed



I went back and read it. Still think the same.

This bit is a hilarious combination of ignorance and arrogance!

"_Wing Chun is a not alone.  The list of fantasy martial arts includes many (if not all) of the Chinese martial arts such as Taichi, Northern and Southern Praying Mantis, White Eyebrow Kung Fu and White Crane Kung Fu. Outside of China there is Aikido, NinJujitsu, and Japanese Jujitsu. From Southeast Asia I can include Kali, Eskrima and Silat on the list. It’s not just limited to Asian arts, as the Russian martial art Systema, and most of the Krav Mag styles can be added as well. Even many of the so called Army Combative make the cut. Does this mean that these styles that make the list are virtually useless when it comes to self-defence? The short answer is yes._"

And after this he talks about combining a fantasy martial with boxing and fencing and that supposedly being better than thousands of traditional styles he has no experience or knowledge of.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 23, 2017)

KPM said:


> Good article here!
> 
> How to spot a Fantasy Martial Art - Rackemann Wing Chun


While I disagree about forms and kata being totally useless(they do physiologically condition your body and mind to move in a certain way quickly and comfortably), the rest of his article is about spot on.  I think this sort of thinking will soon become the norm. The con game that exists within TMA is more and more being put under the microscope, and as more and more of it evaporates under scrutiny, more and more potential 'customers' will be making informed decisions in what they train rather than believing in myths they have heard or seen in movies and beginning their training based on that.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 23, 2017)

KPM said:


> Good article here!
> 
> How to spot a Fantasy Martial Art - Rackemann Wing Chun



KPM,

I have read it. 
I am confused  --- What makes it a good article? 

I find it confusing and no real data. The Article uses terms and tries to do exactly what it says you should avoid. 

Thanks 
Rich


----------



## Phobius (Jul 23, 2017)

Rich Parsons said:


> KPM,
> 
> I have read it.
> I am confused  --- What makes it a good article?
> ...



Dont question the article. Whatever you read on the net has to be the truth.


----------



## Headhunter (Jul 23, 2017)

KPM said:


> Clearly you guys didn't even bother to read the whole article!


Yes I did and I even just read it again my opinion still stands


----------



## SOD-WC (Jul 23, 2017)

that article is a really big round about way of saying "other WC schools are crap join mine instead, but i dont teach WC".
i always wondered, if you mix any MA together, wont it be deemed MMA?


----------



## KPM (Jul 23, 2017)

Rich Parsons said:


> KPM,
> 
> I have read it.
> I am confused  --- What makes it a good article?
> ...



What Martial D said above.   I also disagree with the part about rejecting forms practice.  But I thought the rest of the article where he talks about lack of competitive sparring, trying to save "face" and the rest were pretty "on the money."   He describes most of the problems with "traditional" martial arts today.   He also speaks to some of the points brought up on the other thread in this forum about "What is Wrong with Wing Chun."  He describes a lot of what is wrong with Wing Chun!  So yeah.  I thought it was a pretty good article.  But maybe it hits a little "too close to home" for some in this forum???


----------



## KPM (Jul 23, 2017)

Phobius said:


> Dont question the article. Whatever you read on the net has to be the truth.



Do you disagree with the problems he points out that are found in most TCMAs, including Wing Chun?


----------



## KPM (Jul 23, 2017)

jobo said:


> i did, what do you think I missed



Well, since its an article on his own blog, its really not much of a marketing tool for one!


----------



## drop bear (Jul 23, 2017)

jobo said:


> ok its yet another of those guys who have established their own martial art, rubbishing traditional martials as a marketing tool



Except not all traditional martial art fall in to those traps.

Judo for example.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Except not all traditional martial art fall in to those traps.
> 
> Judo for example.


That's because judo is a real martial art.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 23, 2017)

KPM said:


> trying to save "face"



That's what most of your posts on this forum are attempting to do for yourself.



> I thought it was a pretty good article.  But maybe it hits a little "too close to home" for some in this forum???



You have to insult people, calling them fantasy martial artists because they disagree with you... Your face-saving tactics are awful.



KPM said:


> Do you disagree with the problems he points out that are found in most TCMAs, including Wing Chun?



Neither he nor you know most TCMAs.

You can probably only name a handful, and there are literally thousands.

You are just trying to promote your "Wing Chun Boxing" by style-bashing others.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 23, 2017)

KPM said:


> He describes most of the problems with "traditional" martial arts today.


What was the true "traditional" CMA training?

Here are examples. If you want to learn

- sword, you need to go into the woods and swing your sword to chop down 1,000 tree branches.
- joint locking, you need to go into the woods, use one hand to hold on a tree branch, spin and drop your body, use the other upper arm to break that tree branch. You will need to break 1,000 tree branches this way.
- chain punches, you will need to train "1 step 3 punches" for 3 years.
- ...

In other words, the true "traditional" CMA training did not start from the "form" but started from much more basic.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Except not all traditional martial art fall in to those traps.
> 
> Judo for example.


You mean the modern combat sport of judo?

Old judo had forms at high level.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 24, 2017)

Personally I'm on the fence. Some of what he says are problems are issues in some school's but his broad brush approach is ridiculous.


----------



## KPM (Jul 24, 2017)

LFJ said:


> That's what most of your posts on this forum are attempting to do for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see you are still arguing and looking for every opportunity to discredit me.  You never change!


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2017)

DaveB said:


> You mean the modern combat sport of judo?
> 
> Old judo had forms at high level.



Traditional isn't really age though.


----------



## anerlich (Jul 24, 2017)

I'm not particularly impressed. Most of this is pretty obvious and I disagree with other bits. You can argue about the value of forms or points but without them what you are doing isn't Wing Chun. Tradition isn't everything but it is definitely something.

As for not having complicated terminology or techniques, Tenth Planet Jiu Jitsu intentionally use weird names for obfuscation while coaching in competition.

Sometimes nicknames are necessary as the technical terminology would take several breaths. Just call it a Cryangle, Locoplata or Berimbolo.

Most techniques are both simple and complicated. I've met guys that can speak authoritatively and informatively on a straight footlock for more than twenty minutes. You can convey the fundamentals quickly. Explaining the details that make it more effective can take a lot longer.


----------



## jobo (Jul 24, 2017)

KPM said:


> What Martial D said above.   I also disagree with the part about rejecting forms practice.  But I thought the rest of the article where he talks about lack of competitive sparring, trying to save "face" and the rest were pretty "on the money."   He describes most of the problems with "traditional" martial arts today.   He also speaks to some of the points brought up on the other thread in this forum about "What is Wrong with Wing Chun."  He describes a lot of what is wrong with Wing Chun!  So yeah.  I thought it was a pretty good article.  But maybe it hits a little "too close to home" for some in this forum???


he tried to lump just about everything into his fantasy category, even k v is in there and military combat training and then says as an absolute fact that they are no good for self defence, that is fundamentally untrue, they may not be as good as combat,styles, but all of them are useful for a self,defence to some,degree or another, dependent of course on the physical attributes and,skill of both you and your attacker


----------



## PiedmontChun (Jul 24, 2017)

Judo has kata, and it has been a part of the system since it's inception at the Kodokan under Kano, though it does not play as big of a role as Karate systems where it is more prevalent.
Judo players also practice the entrance of a particular throw over and over. The idea is that to setup a throw 25 times, and throw once with power and good form.... is more beneficial than 10 sloppy throws. While it is very technique based training, I do see similarity or a parallel to WC's emphasis on forms to teach the body how to move. Every fighting system or art has ways of transmitting that information. Having a boxing coach stop you while you are working on the heavy bag and correct your jab, then you go back to it drilling that into muscle memory..... not all that different, just less formal and definitely less esoteric than most TMA's methods of training the body.


----------



## KPM (Jul 24, 2017)

Many years ago in the "other" forum, Terrence Niehoff used to hammer Wing Chun people with a lot of the same points that are in this article.  It didn't go over too well then either.


----------



## jobo (Jul 24, 2017)

KPM said:


> Many years ago in the "other" forum, Terrence Niehoff used to hammer Wing Chun people with a lot of the same points that are in this article.  It didn't go over too well then either.


but the points made vary between grossly untrue and gross exaggeration, there is nothing there than can be said to be,fundamentally accurate


----------



## PiedmontChun (Jul 24, 2017)

I'm sorry, but this article is silly and full of straw man arguments.

I can sit and enjoy the IP Man movies as entertaining......I know of no fellow student who reveres Donnie Yen. That's just absurd. If he is a "poster boy" for WC, then it would be to outsiders with no other knowledge.

Forms and kata are very different things, and he just throws them all in the same box and dismisses them equally, while proclaiming to teach an art of hiss own innovation, but based on an art which would have required him to learn the forms to even begin to understand in the first place. Facepalm.

I'm not even going to bother to comment on the rest. Cranky on a Monday morning.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 24, 2017)

I would say the article is uneven.  As an example I disagree strongly with his takes on the difference between self defense and fighting, the pseudoscience bit and his last point.  I will explain why at the end.  I think people are missing the first part of the article.  He is speaking from growing from the neophyte student to the instructor over decades.  So let me be less wordy...

*Forms (kata) practice:* are not how you fight.  If the instructor doesn't put you in sparing to turn the movements in the form into a practical skill you have found a fantasy Martial Art.

*Belief: *do not become trapped by dogma.  Not every martial art is meant for every practitioner, so allow the evidence of your success, or failure, to guide you.
(I say the above for two reasons... First using Martial Arts is more than the physical techniques.  As an example some martial arts also have different mind sets and if the mind set/philosophy of the Martial Art conflicts with the practitioners personality/temperament it just won't work.  Some people may say "studying the MA can change your personality/temperament" but that is easier said than done.  Second some TMAs, over the years [especially some TCMAs], have evolved to be vehicles for performance in competitions and not practical fighting.  Thank the Chinese Government for that.)

*Non-competitive: *part of the form issue... there is no full spar/free fighting to turn the art into a practical fighting skill.  So drills become an extension of the form issue.

*Complicated terminology and tactics: *When you teach combatives you need to keep to the K.I.S.S principle.  If you use terminology that can confuse the student, or use tactics that have 5 steps when 2 or three would be more effective you create both cognitive and physical inefficiency which can make or break a fight.

*Secret Moves : *( some may find my belief here odd considering what my GM said early in his teaching career).  Because it remains "secret" and is only handed down to "select" students, you never actually know if it's real.  Even if it exists how can you see it's power because you will never see it in practice for fear of the secret "getting out."  It really does smack of the "learn the mystic arts of the Far East" marketing.

(it is also imo simply disingenuous.  You are essentially saying "pay me for an incomplete curriculum" to the majority of your students.)  

*A hierarchical system:  *I definitely agree with this.  Some TKD, and Karate federations go to far with this imo.  In short they reward time in the dojo at least as much as they do skill, sometimes more.  For a good example of this see the history of Dolph Lundgren.  1979 at the World Open Championships they had to find a Brown Belt for him to wear because he was technically only a Green Belt, but he was good enough to actually make it to the final round against Makoto Nakamura.  He went the distance and Makoto (a 2nd Dan Black Belt) won the title in a very controversial decision.

Okay onto where I disagree...

*Self-defense, not fighting:*  My issue is with he last point, "I can't tell the difference."  There is one.  Self-defense, imo, is first about avoiding the fight in the first place.  Second it is about surviving, if that means simply opening up an avenue of escape, that works.  To me fighting is about "winning" the fight, in other words, "last man standing."  You can survive using self-defense even if both are still standing (or at least capable of doing so.

*Pseudoscience isn't science:  *We used to have an actual Scientist in my school who said "Wing Chun is a class in practical Newtonian Physics."  Many martial arts, if not all, are just that.  The angles of deflections, the use of momentum, the body mechanics to generate power, these are all scientific.  The difference is some teachers will point out the physics/science behind the techniques and others don't.  Regardless the science is always there.

*The origin story:* TBH in my school the only part of the "Origin story" that was ever mentioned is that GM William Cheung was a student of Yip Man.  Beyond that the art is "sold" on the fact that my Sifu used it operationally.  He and his Sifu both instruct it to Local, State and Federal LE and that one of my other instructors has used it in unsanctioned competitions that you can see on YouTube.  So in other words it is sold on the basis that, anecdotally, a number of my teachers have used it in reality and it worked.  My anecdotal experience on the job confirms this.  So I suppose I am saying that he seems to forget that looking at any Community (in this case the WC community) as a monolith leads to the Fallacy of composition.

I think he kinda lets slip why it's uneven in the end.  When he talks about being "black listed" from the WC community.  This definitely seems to be written by someone who is disillusioned with said community so overall the article is a tad passive aggressive imo.

Lastly, on a side note.  Donnie Yen actually has been in more than a few fights.  His mother (a martial arts instructor) sent him back to China from the US because he was running with a Chinatown Street Gang and getting into fights, then in 1993 he put 8 people in the hospital for harassing his girlfriend as they left a nightclub.  He was actually initially arrested for that incident but was released after the police completed the investigation.  Now since it was 1993 he didn't use WC because he didn't study it, to my knowledge, until the first film (released in 2008), but he can fight none the less I think.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 24, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What was the true "traditional" CMA training?
> 
> Here are examples. If you want to learn
> 
> ...


Breaking tree limbs is traditional training for chi na.  Most people aren't aware of that. Thanks for mentioning it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 24, 2017)

Articles like this are useless because not everyone takes a martial art to learn how to fight with it.  In order to write such an article one would need to talk to and view the fighting skills of the school's fighters.  trying to see fighting validity in those who don't train to fight is a waste of time.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 24, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Breaking tree limbs is traditional training for chi na.  Most people aren't aware of that. Thanks for mentioning it.


When I was 7, my brother in law taught me how to hit my stick along a tree surface. He told me that if I could be good at that, the moment that my stick can contact on my opponent's stick, I can slide my stick along his stick, hit his fingers, and drop his stick.

2 students wanted to learn the spear technique from a spear master. The spear master asked them to do the following drill for a year:

- clockwise parry,
- counter-clockwise parry,
- stab.

1 year later, both came back to the master. After the master had examined their spear drill, the master asked them to go home and repeat the same drill for another year. After both students had spent 3 years in this simple drill, the master asked both to go home and never came back. The students said, "But you have not taught us any spear form yet." The spear master said, "If you are good in this spear drill, you don't need to learn any spear form."

That's the true "traditional" CMA training. The true "traditional" CMA training did not start from the "form" training but started from much more basic.


----------



## Steve (Jul 24, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I would say the article is uneven.  As an example I disagree strongly with his takes on the difference between self defense and fighting, the pseudoscience bit and his last point.  I will explain why at the end.  I think people are missing the first part of the article.  He is speaking from growing from the neophyte student to the instructor over decades.  So let me be less wordy...
> 
> *Forms (kata) practice:* are not how you fight.  If the instructor doesn't put you in sparing to turn the movements in the form into a practical skill you have found a fantasy Martial Art.
> 
> ...


Excellent post.


----------



## Phobius (Jul 24, 2017)

*Forms (kata) practice:*
I ignore this point, it is silly. Forms never harm anyone unless you missuse them.

*Belief: *
Silly argument, all arts have belief. If they did not noone would train them. You believe the art is this or that great, and as such you start training in it, otherwise you would just as likely pick another art more closer to your home.

*Non-competitive: *
Non-competitive may not be the problem but pressure testing is a major concern. An art needs pressure testing and for non-competitive arts this sometimes becomes a problem because some wants to be fighters and others want to be teachers. There has to be room for both.

*Complicated terminology and tactics: *
Everything is complicated at first. Think BJJ is easy to learn and grasp just like that? BJJ is by UFC standard not a fantasy art.

*Secret Moves : *
Marketing, you lure people to your club so that you can pay the bills. Those that are good students will get that extra juice not because it is kept secret from others but because others will never understand or find out about it. It is all there. Problem is you have to train something so much that it becomes second nature because the body will only use what is deemed basic when in a fight.

Agree or dont agree with the secret moves but it is marketing and says nothing about the art but about the teachers approach to creating a business.

*A hierarchical system:*
See grading not as symbol of skill but symbol of basic knowledge. Like following a set of courses that for each course they complete they earn a grade. Once you receive a grade it tells you nothing about what you have learned, only what it is pointless for the teacher to spend time learning you again.

You group people up and make it more efficient to teach all 'equally'. It harms noone but the one thinking a grade means skill.

*Self-defense, not fighting:* 
This is just silly. A pressure testing is what is essential. Self defense or fighting can be both the same or not. Self defense is a lot more than fighting. What does it mean to the art? Nothing if the student is taught in the same way no matter what.

*Pseudoscience isn't science: *
There is a lot of things in this world people call science when it is not. But yes, almost all arts are scientifically proven. You can do it, therefore it works at least this once.

*The origin story:* 
What does this have to do with anything? What if an alien came to earth to teach boxing to the first ever boxer. What then, would it change the art? Nope. Only thing it would do is have more fans wanting to investigate if the origin against all odds can be partially true.

All in all it is an interesting topic about what needs to be present in a beginners training. But the answer to all his rant summed up is following: Pressure test an art.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 24, 2017)

KPM said:


> I see you are still arguing and looking for every opportunity to discredit me.  You never change!



I did neither.

Just noticed that when people disagreed with you, you said they "obviously didn't read the whole article".

And when they confirmed they had, you said it "must hit a little too close to home", iow "you must be fantasy martial artists."

I just think it's funny how you react to people disagreeing with you. Either deflect or insult.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> *Forms (kata) practice:* are not how you fight. If the instructor doesn't put you in sparing to turn the movements in the form into a practical skill you have found a fantasy Martial Art.



Yeah that was missed i think. I have conversed with people who think kata was fighting. And their lack of fighting ability was due to their lack of understanding the kata. 

And that is just dumb. 

But if you are doing kata as a movement training exercise then it works fine.

A drill is not fighting.

It is something we have to explain a fair bit when we go from drills to resisted. And for some reason the technique they learned ten minutes ago doesn't just work. Of course for us. (And I have stressed this as a big deal sepparating fantasy from reality) If it is resisted. It should not work untill it does work. Sorry if you dont get a double leg takedown for months. Sometimes that is how long it takes.

That is where styles like krav move into full retard in their training. They take a drill. And then move that drill into full contact. Whithout bothering about the other guy fighting back part.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 24, 2017)

Personally, I don't see any reason why someone should be concerned with what someone else puts up on the internet in a blog like this.  Decide for yourself if your training meets your needs.  Lots of people seem to have a Life Mission to try and discredit anything that anyone else does if it does not conform to their own narrowly defined ideals.

I ignore articles like this one.  I have ignored this article too.  It's not worth the time it takes to read it.

If you think Wing Chun has something wrong with it, then do something else.  Don't worry your pretty little head about what other people are doing.  Ain't your business.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2017)

Phobius said:


> *Self-defense, not fighting:*
> This is just silly. A pressure testing is what is essential. Self defense or fighting can be both the same or not. Self defense is a lot more than fighting. What does it mean to the art? Nothing if the student is taught in the same way no matter what.



This is a big red flag actually. Self defence in that the end point of your training is nobody ever has to use it. Or does use it in some metaphysical way.

So I can train Self defence for 20 years and if I am no good at it nobody cares. I may never have gotten in a fight in that time.

If I box and can't box. I will get my head punched in.

There is even the argument that self defence training is validated by never having to use it. But people mostly don't fight. I could validate 20 years of owning a cat that way.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Personally, I don't see any reason why someone should be concerned with what someone else puts up on the internet in a blog like this.  Decide for yourself if your training meets your needs.  Lots of people seem to have a Life Mission to try and discredit anything that anyone else does if it does not conform to their own narrowly defined ideals.
> 
> I ignore articles like this one.  I have ignored this article too.  It's not worth the time it takes to read it.
> 
> If you think Wing Chun has something wrong with it, then do something else.  Don't worry your pretty little head about what other people are doing.  Ain't your business.



There are two ways to look at this problem. You can do your own style and watch people suffer shysters and failures so that you lower the skills of the people around you. The idea is you let them fail so that you can succeed.

Or you can be concerned about the success of other people in the hope that their increase in success provides the material for your own. 

For me I don't think your stance is either the moral one or the practical one.


----------



## anerlich (Jul 24, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I have ignored this article too.



Other than posting about how you ignored it, and telling other people not to worry their pretty little heads about it, yes.



Flying Crane said:


> Don't worry your pretty little head about what other people are doing.



You mean, like, worry about what the other people discussing this article are doing?

C'mon. It's just a discussion point KPM raised. That's why we're here. It's like being at a bar, not a philosophy summit.


----------



## anerlich (Jul 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I could validate 20 years of owning a cat that way.



I've owned cats for about 33 years. So my cat owning opinions are more valid than yours.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 24, 2017)

anerlich said:


> Other than posting about how you ignored it, and telling other people not to worry their pretty little heads about it, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well no, I ignored it.  I didn't click on the link, I didn't open it up, I didn't read so much as a single word of it.  I ignored it.

I did, however, suggest in the discussion about said article, that it's worth ignoring.


----------



## anerlich (Jul 24, 2017)

You probably shouldn't get upset if people ignore your advice about the article, then. At least I paid you the courtesy of not doing that.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2017)

anerlich said:


> I've owned cats for about 33 years. So my cat owning opinions are more valid than yours.



Yeah but how many street fights has owning a cat enabled you to avoid?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2017)

anerlich said:


> You probably shouldn't get upset if people ignore your advice about the article, then. At least I paid you the courtesy of not doing that.



We get a few who do that. I don't think they realise what they are actually doing.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 24, 2017)

anerlich said:


> You probably shouldn't get upset if people ignore your advice about the article, then. At least I paid you the courtesy of not doing that.


Why would I get upset?


----------



## anerlich (Jul 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but how many street fights has owning a cat enabled you to avoid?



I guess I've spent time at home with my cats or at the vet that I could have otherwise spent getting into street fights. So I may have avoided a few. OTOH I may have missed out on some of the essential street fighting experience that is required to post on this forum.


----------



## KPM (Jul 24, 2017)

LFJ said:


> I did neither.
> 
> Just noticed that when people disagreed with you, you said they "obviously didn't read the whole article".
> 
> ...



Well, let's see.  I posted that after 3 people had commented.  You admitted you didn't read the whole article, Headhunter said that Rackemann had taken only a couple of karate classes, so it sure seemed like he hadn't read the article.  That leaves Jobo.  So, Ok.....Jobo I apologize for assuming you hadn't read the article!


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2017)

I read the whole article but did so in a silly Indian accent.


----------



## KPM (Jul 24, 2017)

*Personally, I don't see any reason why someone should be concerned with what someone else puts up on the internet in a blog like this. *

---Like it or hate it, it provides some good points for discussion.

* Decide for yourself if your training meets your needs.  Lots of people seem to have a Life Mission to try and discredit anything that anyone else does if it does not conform to their own narrowly defined ideals.*

---Good advice. 

*I ignore articles like this one.  I have ignored this article too.  It's not worth the time it takes to read it.*

---How do you know?  You didn't read it!  Even if you disagreed with what Rackemann said, it would make you think about WHY you disagreed.  You might even end up realizing that at some level there is some truth to what he says, even if he does take his points a bit too far at times.  That's the reason for posting topics for discussion.  If everyone agreed, then there would be nothing to discuss.  But if you won't even consider the topic, how can you discuss it?


----------



## KPM (Jul 24, 2017)

Ok.  Here is what I thought of the article:

1. Forms Practice.   I still practice my Wing Chun forms and find them valuable.  But if all someone did in their Wing Chun training was forms and  Chi Sau, then they would have a very false sense of their own abilities in a real exchange and if they mistakenly thought that their forms and Chi Sau training qualified them as a "fighter" they would likely be doing "Fantasy Fu."

2.  Belief valued over evidence.  Absolutely!  Everyone wants to believe their marital art is the best thing ever!  But they often lack evidence of its fighting effectiveness in a modern scenario.  But they instructor often doesn't want them to go out and actually test it against others because it may shake their belief in it!  Why else do you think there are so many stories about fighters in by-gone eras?  

3.  Self-defense not fighting.   How many times have we heard this?  Admit it!  Plenty of Wing Chun people use the old line "We don't spar because our techniques are too dangerous.  We train for self-defense only!" ????  Phobius said it right when the talked about pressure testing.  I doubt Rackemann would disagree with his points.  But many times people with this "self-defense" orientation DON'T pressure test.  That is the problem!

4. Complicated terminology and tactics.   He is talking as much about involved technique combinations as anything.  I've pointed this out in the past as well.  Some teachers have this involved "Lat Sau" program in teaching Chi Sau that is just completely unrealistic.  If you are teaching combinations of movements that go beyond 3 counts, then it is very likely that what you are teaching is not going to work in a real situation.  Especially against a non-Wing Chun person!  Thinking that since you are such a wiz at completing all of these complicated Lat Sau progressions that you must be a bad MF (martial fan) fighter means you are likely practicing "Fantasy Fu"!  

5.  Pseudoscience isn't science.  He makes a relatively weak point here.  He is basically saying if people aren't pressure testing what they are doing to make sure it works, then talking about how their method is based on biomechanics, efficiency, etc. is a moot point.  I don't entirely go along with him on this one.

6.  Secret moves.   I think this one is becoming a thing of the past with so many styles on video now.  Sucking in students by promising the "ultimate fighting secrets" doesn't work as well as it used to!

7.  Hierarchical System.  I don't go along with him on this one either.  Martial arts have a set curriculum.  Working through and being able to teach that curriculum to others in a progressive fashion is hierarchical.  I don't have a  problem with that.  There is value to having the "seasoned elders" in a system that have deep knowledge.  Should the young studs with physical talent and good conditioning that could beat that senior or elder in a free fight have a higher rank?  I don't think so.  

8.  The awesome Sifu.  This is certainly a problem.  We've all seen it....the instructor that wants to create this aura of the superior fighter about himself and won't let anyone seem to challenge or disrepect him.  Ego is can be a bad thing and can even leave to abuse at times.

9.  Past Glory.   I don't think anyone in Wing Chun holds Donnie Yen up as the "poster boy" for effective Wing Chun fighting!   But their is a  problem with TCMAs holding up the reputations of past instructors as their sole claim to effectiveness, when modern practitioners aren't getting out there and showing that the style is still relevant.  Relying on the stories of Wong Fei Hung, or Chen Man Ching, or Leung Jan, or Ip Man to say your martial art is effective rather than proving it for yourself is in the realm of "Fantasy Fu."  

10.  Origin stories.  Yeah, this one seems irrelevant.  Every fighting art has a history, whether actual or made up.  What's the point?

He then goes on to blast all kinds of systems, both traditional and modern.  Many with justification, but many probably without good justification.   So I agree with 5 of his 10 points.  Still thought it was a pretty good article that provides food for thought!  And worth reading, if for no other reason that to make you examine these points in your own martial art and decide that they are not true....or that they are!


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 24, 2017)

How can it be fantasy martial arts if a person never wanted to learn how to fight by using Martial arts?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 24, 2017)

KPM said:


> What Martial D said above.   I also disagree with the part about rejecting forms practice.  But I thought the rest of the article where he talks about lack of competitive sparring, trying to save "face" and the rest were pretty "on the money."   He describes most of the problems with "traditional" martial arts today.   He also speaks to some of the points brought up on the other thread in this forum about "What is Wrong with Wing Chun."  He describes a lot of what is wrong with Wing Chun!  So yeah.  I thought it was a pretty good article.  But maybe it hits a little "too close to home" for some in this forum???



One can make those points. 
I just thought it was overly long which is one of the points the article says to avoid. 
I found that some of the points were argued around and not directly head on - which is another point the article said to avoid. 
So if you followed half the article one would not read the article at all  
The hypocrisy and inconsistencies made me frustrated and thinking it was poorly written. 

As to needing to test your techniques or pressure test I agree. 
As to needing to work with those outside your circle to do that to see different angles and techniques and perspectives then yes. 

Yet, there was a lot of fluff to say what I said in two lines.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 25, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I read the whole article but did so in a silly Indian accent.


Native American "indian" or subcontinent India indian? I tried reading it wearing a beret. Made no difference.


----------



## KPM (Jul 25, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> How can it be fantasy martial arts if a person never wanted to learn how to fight by using Martial arts?



True.  Not everyone studies martial arts to learn how to fight.  Some take a  Tai Chi class for health.  Some take a Tae Kwon Do class just for exercise and maybe sport.  And some take a "traditional" martial art just for the sake of participating in and preserving a "tradition."  But there are plenty out there that do have a false sense of being able to take care of themselves against a street attack.  And there are some out there that think they would have no problem in a modern free fight scenario. And there are plenty of instructors that encourage those ideas in their students even though they don't "pressure test" or train very realistically.  But they might get a surprise if they ever had to put those ideas to the test!


----------



## KPM (Jul 25, 2017)

Rich Parsons said:


> I just thought it was overly long which is one of the points the article says to avoid.
> I found that some of the points were argued around and not directly head on - which is another point the article said to avoid.
> So if you followed half the article one would not read the article at all



That conclusion seems odd to me.  He was talking about the study of martial arts when he made those points, not the writing of articles on a blogsite.   And it seems odd to disregard an article based upon the composer's writing abilities rather than his actual points.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> True.  Not everyone studies martial arts to learn how to fight.  Some take a  Tai Chi class for health.  Some take a Tae Kwon Do class just for exercise and maybe sport.  And some take a "traditional" martial art just for the sake of participating in and preserving a "tradition."  But there are plenty out there that do have a false sense of being able to take care of themselves against a street attack.  And there are some out there that think they would have no problem in a modern free fight scenario. And there are plenty of instructors that encourage those ideas in their students even though they don't "pressure test" or train very realistically.  But they might get a surprise if they ever had to put those ideas to the test!


Maybe the guy in the article should have used a better word than "fantasy" to me fantasy would be something that has false application.  A teacher can know the techniques and know the application of the techniques, but has no clue how to apply the techniques in a fight.  If this is the case then the system isn't a fantasy martial arts, it just means that the teaching is incomplete.

From what I picked up when reading the article, the author is talking more about incomplete teaching in the context of being able to fight using martial arts.  In my mind this is not the same thing as fantasy martial arts.  To me fantasy martial arts = kids playing pretend martial arts 
There's no martial application of this stuff.





But it looks good when the effects come in





Incomplete teaching to me is when a teacher doesn't know all aspects of a system.  They either know the fighting aspects but not the healing aspects or they know the health aspects but not the fighting aspects.  Lacking in either one doesn't make it a fantasy system.  If someone wants to learn how to fight using a martial arts system then they should ask the teacher if they can help the student reach that.  Then the student has to make the effort to use the techniques to fight.  A teacher alone cannot teach a student how to fight, he/ she can only get the student half way there.  The rest is up to the student.  The reason I say this is because, I have taught student who wanted to learn how to fight using Jow Ga kung fu, but for whatever reason, they never tried to use the techniques in free sparring exercises.  They can't learn to fight with kung fu if they don't try to fight with kung fu.  So if you see them fight and they can't use Jow Ga kung fu, does that make the system fantasy?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> True.  Not everyone studies martial arts to learn how to fight.  Some take a  Tai Chi class for health.  Some take a Tae Kwon Do class just for exercise and maybe sport.  And some take a "traditional" martial art just for the sake of participating in and preserving a "tradition."  But there are plenty out there that do have a false sense of being able to take care of themselves against a street attack.  And there are some out there that think they would have no problem in a modern free fight scenario. And there are plenty of instructors that encourage those ideas in their students even though they don't "pressure test" or train very realistically.  But they might get a surprise if they ever had to put those ideas to the test!


So I guess it boils down to "caveate emptor" and "know thyself".  This is not surprising.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 25, 2017)

anerlich said:


> I've owned cats for about 33 years. So my cat owning opinions are more valid than yours.


I've had cats for about 43 years so I demand that you bow down to my seniority in cat wrangling.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> *Personally, I don't see any reason why someone should be concerned with what someone else puts up on the internet in a blog like this. *
> 
> ---Like it or hate it, it provides some good points for discussion.
> 
> ...


We've all seen enough of these to know where they always end up: my stuff is great and if you don't do things in a way that is vastly similar to how I do it, then you suck.

After a while you begin to realize that these things are worth ignoring.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 25, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I've had cats for about 43 years so I demand that you bow down to my seniority in cat wrangling.


I recently had to have another cat euthanized, she was with us for 15 years, and was having kidney failure.  Y'all are gonna make me start crying again, so knock it off, damn you.


----------



## Steve (Jul 25, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I've had cats for about 43 years so I demand that you bow down to my seniority in cat wrangling.


You got it.  I waited 43 years to have a cat.  And now I have two.  One of them is even pretty cool.


----------



## Steve (Jul 25, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> We've all seen enough of these to know where they always end up: my stuff is great and if you don't do things in a way that is vastly similar to how I do it, then you suck.
> 
> After a while you begin to realize that these things are worth ignoring.


Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 25, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Personally, I don't see any reason why someone should be concerned with what someone else puts up on the internet in a blog like this.


When I see comments such as:

- You should ask your coach.
- You should ask your Sifu.
- You should ask your Sensei.
- Don't expect to get any valuable information online.
- I can't care less about what you say (or do).
- ...

It makes me think what am I doing here right at this moment?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 25, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I've had cats for about 43 years so I demand that you bow down to my seniority in cat wrangling.


When my 2 lb 7 oz Yokie Yaya died on 4/21 this year, it affected both my wife and me big time. The next day after my dog died, my wife and I drove 700 miles to get another Yorkie Jaja. The problem is my wife keeps saying that the new dog doesn't have the same

- hair color as the old one had.
- smile as the old one had (the old one had build in smile).
- personality as the old one had.
- bond as the old one did.
- ...

Since we all know that all pet will die. Is it worthy to have the happiness when they are alive but have to face the sadness when they die? I truly don't know.

My old dog Yaya:







My new dog Jaja.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 25, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I see comments such as:
> 
> - You should ask your coach.
> - You should ask your Sifu.
> ...


That is a question that I often ask myself.  I do know what the answer often is: I am at work and I am monumentally bored and looking for a distraction.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 25, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> That is a question that I often ask myself.  I do know what the answer often is: I am at work and I am monumentally bored and looking for a distraction.


We just try to talk to someone online who share the same interest as we do. One day I was bored. I knocked on my next door neighbor and asked him if he wanted to spar with me. The way that he looked at me as if I came from another planet.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 25, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We just try to talk to someone online who share the same interest as we do. One day I was bored. I knocked on my next door neighbor and asked him if he wanted to spar with me. The way that he looked at me as if I came from another planet.


Yeah that's true, we are looking for discussion about shared interests.  All too often tho the thread turns into a trainwreck from which we cannot look away.  And I know, I too am guilty of contributing to that.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 25, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> That is a question that I often ask myself.  I do know what the answer often is: I am at work and I am monumentally bored and looking for a distraction.


My wife told me that all I do is talk kung fu here, so I told her that either you guys will here it (my kung fu talk) or she will have to hear it.  This place should be advertised as the place to send your husband / wife when you get tired of him / her talking martial arts.  "We take the beating so you don't have to" lol


----------



## Buka (Jul 25, 2017)

Flying Crane and Kung Fu Wang, my sincere condolences. It's so damn hard losing a pet. But as hard as it is, it's worth it. They give us so damn much.

Right now we're petless. Making do by feeding feral baby chicks and feral kittens, all over the yard - and trying to keep the mongooses away, who'll eat all of them if given the chance.

Going to get a dog in the winter, once back from vacation.


----------



## anerlich (Jul 25, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I've had cats for about 43 years so I demand that you bow down to my seniority in cat wrangling.



You win, Tony.

I lost one to a car, and had to take another two to the vet for final visits. It sucks, but the good times with them were worth the pain.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 25, 2017)

anerlich said:


> You win, Tony.
> 
> I lost one to a car, and had to take another two to the vet for final visits. It sucks, but the good times with them were worth the pain.


Yup, and yup.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 25, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah that's true, we are looking for discussion about shared interests.  All too often tho the thread turns into a trainwreck from which we cannot look away.  And I know, I too am guilty of contributing to that.



I am happy to jump on all of your threads and tell you how much I dont want to be participating in them if you want.

Seems a bit duchebaggy even for me though.


----------



## anerlich (Jul 25, 2017)

It pays to come in with moderate expectations. That way, you occasionally get a pleasant surprise.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> 5. Pseudoscience isn't science. He makes a relatively weak point here. He is basically saying if people aren't pressure testing what they are doing to make sure it works, then talking about how their method is based on biomechanics, efficiency, etc. is a moot point. I don't entirely go along with him on this one.



Yeah see I hate martial arts science. I am not a scientist. Generally the person explaining it isn't a scientist. So neither of us have the grounding to understand what terms we are using and more importantly what terms we are missing.

It is used in false advertising all the time.


----------



## KPM (Jul 25, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Maybe the guy in the article should have used a better word than "fantasy" to me fantasy would be something that has false application.  A teacher can know the techniques and know the application of the techniques, but has no clue how to apply the techniques in a fight.  If this is the case then the system isn't a fantasy martial arts, it just means that the teaching is incomplete.



I think his point  was that if you are involved with a martial art and have the belief that you are training to be one skilled MF (martial fan) even though the martial art you are training does no real sparring or pressure testing....then you are likely living in a fantasy.  Complete.  Incomplete.  Traditional.  Modern.  Doesn't matter.   Its a fantasy to feel all warm and fuzzy about your fighting abilities when you really have none!


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> I think his point  was that if you are involved with a martial art and have the belief that you are training to be one skilled MF (martial fan) even though the martial art you are training does no real sparring or pressure testing....then you are likely living in a fantasy.  Complete.  Incomplete.  Traditional.  Modern.  Doesn't matter.   Its a fantasy to feel all warm and fuzzy about your fighting abilities when you really have none!


I think he should be more specific.  Instead of saying what is fantasy, just focus on what's needed to be able able to actually use martial arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

Martial D said:


> While I disagree about forms and kata being totally useless(they do physiologically condition your body and mind to move in a certain way quickly and comfortably), the rest of his article is about spot on.  I think this sort of thinking will soon become the norm. The con game that exists within TMA is more and more being put under the microscope, and as more and more of it evaporates under scrutiny, more and more potential 'customers' will be making informed decisions in what they train rather than believing in myths they have heard or seen in movies and beginning their training based on that.


The problem is that he extends his argument to things that are irrelevant to the effectiveness of an art (hierarchy, for instance) and uses them to designate any art having that feature as ineffective. That comment can be applied to most of the points he makes. Put all of those things together, and you likely have a problem, but they do not individually (nor necessarily severally) indicate a "fantasy art". Nor does changing most of those things necessarily fix an art that isn't working.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

KPM said:


> Well, since its an article on his own blog, its really not much of a marketing tool for one!


Many blogs are used for marketing purposes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah that was missed i think. I have conversed with people who think kata was fighting. And their lack of fighting ability was due to their lack of understanding the kata.
> 
> And that is just dumb.
> 
> ...


This. Definitely. While there are some techniques I wouldn't practice on a fully-resisting person (I don't want to break hands, which I've seen happen), I also don't count those techniques among my "pocket techniques". And some of the techniques I practice, I see as movement and control training, rather than actual usable techniques (similar to shrimping across a floor - the shrimping movement is usable, but you'd never use it as a means of conveyance). What you depend upon should be the stuff you can pull off against someone who's not expecting it and is trying to win.

I have a student who often apologizes for giving me surprise resistance when he wants to see if I can control him. I can't seem to convince him that's okay.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

anerlich said:


> I've owned cats for about 33 years. So my cat owning opinions are more valid than yours.


I have 35 years of cat experience, though I stepped away from cats for a few years. So, am I more experienced, or did I start over as a beginner 10 years ago?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but how many street fights has owning a cat enabled you to avoid?


Nearly all of them. In fact, now that I think about it, I've never had an altercation as a teen or adult while I owned a cat. All of mine were during the period I didn't own a cat.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I read the whole article but did so in a silly Indian accent.


How very Monty Python of you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

KPM said:


> 4. Complicated terminology and tactics. He is talking as much about involved technique combinations as anything. I've pointed this out in the past as well. Some teachers have this involved "Lat Sau" program in teaching Chi Sau that is just completely unrealistic. If you are teaching combinations of movements that go beyond 3 counts, then it is very likely that what you are teaching is not going to work in a real situation. Especially against a non-Wing Chun person! Thinking that since you are such a wiz at completing all of these complicated Lat Sau progressions that you must be a bad MF (martial fan) fighter means you are likely practicing "Fantasy Fu"!


I'm not sure that follows, KPM. The point of combinations isn't always to replicate the full combination in a fight, but to train the transitions between techniques. Those transitions (pairs of techniques) are what will (possibly) show up in a fight. A 2-step combination may show up in its entirety. 6 different 2-step combinations may each show up in their entirety. If you string them together (7 techniques, 6 transitions), it's unlikely the whole will show up in its entirety, but the individual pairs remain as likely as they were before they were strung together.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

KPM said:


> 8. The awesome Sifu. This is certainly a problem. We've all seen it....the instructor that wants to create this aura of the superior fighter about himself and won't let anyone seem to challenge or disrepect him. Ego is can be a bad thing and can even leave to abuse at times.


This one definitely is a problem, and seems to be more likely in TMA. I try really hard to make sure my students know I should fail if they get good enough, or just get lucky. I've been hit in demonstration by low-ranking students because I wasn't paying enough attention to the technique (too busy explaining it to the students). My students have gotten used to the fact that it's my fault, not theirs. I'm not sure why some instructors feel students owe them the courtesy of not being better than them, even for a moment, even by luck.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

KPM said:


> 10. Origin stories. Yeah, this one seems irrelevant. Every fighting art has a history, whether actual or made up. What's the point?


I'm glad this one is irrelevant. We don't have much of an origin in NGA - we lost much of the oral history when it came to the US and later died out in Japan.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

Steve said:


> You got it.  I waited 43 years to have a cat.  And now I have two.  One of them is even pretty cool.


I have one very cool cat (24 lbs, apparently half dog) and one my wife wouldn't let me name "Psycho".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> My wife told me that all I do is talk kung fu here, so I told her that either you guys will here it (my kung fu talk) or she will have to hear it.  This place should be advertised as the place to send your husband / wife when you get tired of him / her talking martial arts.  "We take the beating so you don't have to" lol


Agreed. My wife is one of my students, and still gets tired of how much I talk about MA.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 26, 2017)

KPM said:


> Good article here!
> 
> How to spot a Fantasy Martial Art - Rackemann Wing Chun



Didn't care for the article.

First, anytime someone has to disparage someone to elevate themselves....usually a sign that they are peddling some type of B.S.

Second, absolutely hate when someone makes broad assumptions without facts and experience.

Third, like the saying goes....never call a guy a bum (or a style a fantasy) unless you are prepared to get in the ring and prove him to be one.  And I doubt that guy is willing to take on all comers.....see the first point.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 26, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The problem is that he extends his argument to things that are irrelevant to the effectiveness of an art (hierarchy, for instance) and uses them to designate any art having that feature as ineffective. That comment can be applied to most of the points he makes. Put all of those things together, and you likely have a problem, but they do not individually (nor necessarily severally) indicate a "fantasy art". Nor does changing most of those things necessarily fix an art that isn't working.



Devil's advocate... Could you not argue the heirarchy hurts in the following manner?  In most schools the black belts help teach.  If a large portion of their advancement is based on time and not actual skill/talent, then aren't the assistant instructors "hurting" the other students and thus the effectiveness of the art?


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 26, 2017)

anerlich said:


> I've owned cats for about 33 years. So my cat owning opinions are more valid than yours.


I have 6 cats atm (wife is taking them with the divorce), if we total their ages, which I think is fair because they each bring their own special kind of chaos, thats 77 years worth of cat herding.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 26, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure that follows, KPM. The point of combinations isn't always to replicate the full combination in a fight, but to train the transitions between techniques. Those transitions (pairs of techniques) are what will (possibly) show up in a fight. A 2-step combination may show up in its entirety. 6 different 2-step combinations may each show up in their entirety. If you string them together (7 techniques, 6 transitions), it's unlikely the whole will show up in its entirety, but the individual pairs remain as likely as they were before they were strung together.



I think overly complicated is the wrong way of expressing the idea. But I think I get what he was aiming for. Where you are trying to do things like catch punches out of thin air. Grab the arm. Lock it up. It usually takes two or three motions and just far too long in the scheme of things.

Rather than say an omapalada. Which is complicated but can be pulled off du to the situation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Devil's advocate... Could you not argue the heirarchy hurts in the following manner?  In most schools the black belts help teach.  If a large portion of their advancement is based on time and not actual skill/talent, then aren't the assistant instructors "hurting" the other students and thus the effectiveness of the art?


In most hierarchical associations, it's only the upper ranks that are divorced from skill testing. In the NGAA, for instance, 1st and 2nd dan ranks are tested. Above that, ranks are for honorary and hierarchical purposes, only (other than the fact that dan ranks can promote to one rank below them).

So, for the student, there's very little functional difference between the NGAA's 6 dan ranks and hierarchy, versus the 3 "ranks" (black belt student, instructor, senior instructor) I use. In both cases, all that matters is the associate instructor level (their 1st dan, my "instructor") and the chief instructor level (their 2nd dan, my "senior instructor"). Beyond that is just for organizational purposes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I think overly complicated is the wrong way of expressing the idea. But I think I get what he was aiming for. Where you are trying to do things like catch punches out of thin air. Grab the arm. Lock it up. It usually takes two or three motions and just far too long in the scheme of things.
> 
> Rather than say an omapalada. Which is complicated but can be pulled off du to the situation.



Catching a punch and grabbing moving arms (rather than trapping them) are problems, but he seemed to be talking about the number of pre-planned steps. There are a lot of steps, for instance, in the sequence to go from inside a closed guard to passing to side control to an arm lock. At any point in that sequence, the opponent could interrupt it, but that doesn't make the sequence useless. Each of the transitions in that sequence, and all of the pieces needed to make those work, are useful, and practicing that sequence is an easy way to get them all in, in a short period of time.

I consider catching fists and moving arms to be a misunderstanding of the techniques. I've seen them practiced, and it's like practicing a hip throw without knowing what puts the person in position to move under, how to get that underhook in (assuming you're using one, rather than dragging them by the gi), etc. There are plenty of situations where a hip throw with an underhook is really unrealistic, and the same is true of a wrist lock from an arm drag (which requires trapping the arm, first). In most cases, where I see people missing this, it's really the idea of the arm drag they are missing.


----------



## ShortBridge (Jul 26, 2017)

Didn't make it through. This guy has his own blind spots and is convinced that they are not there...just like the people he is criticizing.


----------



## Buka (Jul 26, 2017)

I read the article strictly for the sake of conversation. He makes some okay points, and just as many not okay points. I agree with the Sifu cult thoughts, but don't really see that sort of thing any more, at least as opposed to thirty years ago. There's probably still a few, but I think there's a better Martial educated public these days.

I agree with the secret techniques thoughts. But to give the devil his due, that was always my favorite bs Martial thing, Secret Techniques. Never actually knew any myself, but loved hearing it from the Kool Aide crowd. I say bring it back! At least it's entertaining.

As Juany noted, Donnie Yen did used to get into fights. It was mostly a territorial thing, and a lot of the fights were against others who trained, and just plain young man nonsense. I spent a good amount of time in Chinatown back in the day, and know a few cops who were stationed there then, dealing with all that crap. His mom, Bow-sim Mark, is a great Martial Artist, by the way. 

But I, myself, do Fantasy Martial Arts. American Karate. We pretty much made it up ourselves, can't get much more fantasy than that. And I DO live on an island....AND work at an Airport. So when I say "The Plane, Boss, The Plane!" You all might want to check your bags.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 26, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> In most hierarchical associations, it's only the upper ranks that are divorced from skill testing. In the NGAA, for instance, 1st and 2nd dan ranks are tested. Above that, ranks are for honorary and hierarchical purposes, only (other than the fact that dan ranks can promote to one rank below them).
> 
> So, for the student, there's very little functional difference between the NGAA's 6 dan ranks and hierarchy, versus the 3 "ranks" (black belt student, instructor, senior instructor) I use. In both cases, all that matters is the associate instructor level (their 1st dan, my "instructor") and the chief instructor level (their 2nd dan, my "senior instructor"). Beyond that is just for organizational purposes.



What I was referring to was more of this sort.  "To achieve rank X you must have been practicing under our association for a period of no less than four years and pass test Y."

That kind of system I think can have two effects. First it discourages the Talented students that put in a lot of work. Second it encourages, imo, those who do just enough to get by, so long as the pay X years worth of tuition.  Those types of people being in positions to teach kinda irk me.  Maybe I am just projecting a pet peeve.


----------



## Steve (Jul 26, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> What I was referring to was more of this sort.  "To achieve rank X you must have been practicing under our association for a period of no less than four years and pass test Y."
> 
> That kind of system I think can have two effects. First it discourages the Talented students that put in a lot of work. Second it encourages, imo, those who do just enough to get by, so long as the pay X years worth of tuition.  Those types of people being in positions to teach kinda irk me.  Maybe I am just projecting a pet peeve.


Just my opinion but if the standards are well considered and the test sound then the folks who do just enough to get by are just fine.  The fault in any system isn't the students.  That's blaming the victim.


----------



## SOD-WC (Jul 26, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> This. Definitely. While there are some techniques I wouldn't practice on a fully-resisting person (I don't want to break hands, which I've seen happen), I also don't count those techniques among my "pocket techniques". And some of the techniques I practice, I see as movement and control training, rather than actual usable techniques (similar to shrimping across a floor - the shrimping movement is usable, but you'd never use it as a means of conveyance). What you depend upon should be the stuff you can pull off against someone who's not expecting it and is trying to win.
> 
> I have a student who often apologizes for giving me surprise resistance when he wants to see if I can control him. I can't seem to convince him that's okay.


shrimping across the floor, what movement does that train? i know doing the worm allows u to relax the body.


----------



## Steve (Jul 26, 2017)

SOD-WC said:


> shrimping across the floor, what movement does that train? i know doing the worm allows u to relax the body.


It teaches you how to move your hips to create room to improve your position while in the ground.   Think of it as the first step to either regaining guard or returning to your feet.

The shrimping movement is foundational and very important.

Watch these heckin cute 5 year olds demonstrate how it looks.  Notice that every time he performs the motion, his hips clear his partner's legs.  And in real life, like in this drill, opponents rarely let you escape, so you often need to shrimp several times in order to successfully create enough space to improve your position.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 26, 2017)

Steve said:


> Just my opinion but if the standards are well considered and the test sound then the folks who do just enough to get by are just fine.  The fault in any system isn't the students.  That's blaming the victim.



As a student yes.  But many schools treat black belts not simply as students but also as defacto assistant instructors per Federation guidelines.  Someone can pass a test as a student and not be a suitable teacher.


----------



## Steve (Jul 26, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> As a student yes.  But many schools treat black belts not simply as students but also as defacto assistant instructors per Federation guidelines.  Someone can pass a test as a student and not be a suitable teacher.


If the system is sound, and the expectation is that a black belt will be a competent instructor, then they won't be promoted until they meet that standard.   If they don't, that's on the system, not on the person who was promoted before they were ready.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 26, 2017)

Steve said:


> If the system is sound, and the expectation is that a black belt will be a competent instructor, then they won't be promoted until they meet that standard.   If they don't, that's on the system, not on the person who was promoted before they were ready.



And that was the point in the article.  That some systems and the hierarchy that it produces, is the problem.


----------



## geezer (Jul 26, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> As a student yes.  But many schools treat black belts not simply as students but also as defacto assistant instructors per Federation guidelines.  Someone can pass a test as a student and not be a suitable teacher.



You are talking a quality issue. It's not about _whether_ students should assist the instructor, but _which_ students should be assisting.

In organization I belong to, typically the si-hing spend a fair portion of each class drilling with their si-dai. WC/VT is taught hands on, and to learn it well you need to cross bridges with your betters. 

In my own group we have two students at "Primary-Level" (the equivalent of 1st degree black belt, or about 6 years experience) and they routinely act as assistant instructors. And on the rare occasions I have to be absent, they run class for me. Both are adults, have been through training and curriculum workshops, and do a great job. Since the classes are very small, I still get around to everybody so I don't see the problem.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 26, 2017)

geezer said:


> You are talking a quality issue. It's not about _whether_ students should assist the instructor, but _which_ students should be assisting.
> 
> In organization I belong to, typically the si-hing spend a fair portion of each class drilling with their si-dai. WC/VT is taught hands on, and to learn it well you need to cross bridges with your betters.
> 
> In my own group we have two students at "Primary-Level" (the equivalent of 1st degree black belt, or about 6 years experience) and they routinely act as assistant instructors. And on the rare occasions I have to be absent, they run class for me. Both are adults, have been through training and curriculum workshops, and do a great job. Since the classes are very small, I still get around to everybody so I don't see the problem.



Yes indeed.  My School is similar I believe.  We have one assistant instructor who is "only" level 7, but he has been promoted to assistant instructor while two "level 9" students are simply students.  My Sifu is very much not only about your rank but how good you are at passing on what you know to others.  We also do the mixing you note for drilling, sihing/sije with sidai/simui, but I am more referring to those who will be observing others and step in and make a correction on one or both.

What I am speaking too is anecdotal from my brother-in-law.  He is pretty good at TKD to the point if the Sa bum can't make it he is in charge and when the Sa bum is there he supervises the "senior students" and my bro the juniors.  However he complains about the fact that 1. he has awesome students that can't be promoted because they don't have the "time" and others who aren't as good who get the opportunity to test simply because of the time.


----------



## Steve (Jul 26, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> And that was the point in the article.  That some systems and the hierarchy that it produces, is the problem.


Agreed.   And if the results aren't directly connected to the expectations, there is a flaw in the system.   but it's not specific to the heirarchy.   The heirarchy is one example.   If the system expects black belts to be able to juggle five knives, but doesn't train them to be able to juggle at all, the system is flawed.   Not the fault of the students.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> What I was referring to was more of this sort.  "To achieve rank X you must have been practicing under our association for a period of no less than four years and pass test Y."
> 
> That kind of system I think can have two effects. First it discourages the Talented students that put in a lot of work. Second it encourages, imo, those who do just enough to get by, so long as the pay X years worth of tuition.  Those types of people being in positions to teach kinda irk me.  Maybe I am just projecting a pet peeve.


I agree (though I don't see that as having much to do with hierarchy). I do like the idea of time-based guidelines. Mostly, they help instructors avoid promoting people too quickly. But they should be just that: guidelines. My guidelines include a minimum of 6 months to get to yellow (first ranked belt) and another year to get to orange (second). Most students won't make it in those timeframes, which is the point. If I have a student who appears to be ready quicker than that, I need to step back and ask myself if they are actually ready, or if I'm just excited because they're memorizing techniques faster than normal. If the answer is that they are actually ready, I'll test them and promote them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2017)

Steve said:


> Just my opinion but if the standards are well considered and the test sound then the folks who do just enough to get by are just fine.  The fault in any system isn't the students.  That's blaming the victim.


I missed that in Juany's post. Yes, if the requirements are properly set, "just enough" is, in fact, enough. If it's not, the requirements want changing. Now, I'm not excited about someone teaching who has only done what they "had to" - I'd hope that the enthusiastic few become the teachers, but that won't always be the case. That's why I'm in favor of an actual instructor development program. Just being good at the "doing" doesn't always make for a good teacher.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2017)

SOD-WC said:


> shrimping across the floor, what movement does that train? i know doing the worm allows u to relax the body.


It trains the shrimping motion, which is part of some ground escapes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2017)

Steve said:


> It teaches you how to move your hips to create room to improve your position while in the ground.   Think of it as the first step to either regaining guard or returning to your feet.
> 
> The shrimping movement is foundational and very important.
> 
> Watch these heckin cute 5 year olds demonstrate how it looks.  Notice that every time he performs the motion, his hips clear his partner's legs.  And in real life, like in this drill, opponents rarely let you escape, so you often need to shrimp several times in order to successfully create enough space to improve your position.


I like that drill - a very simple way to partner folks up and make sure the hips are actually moving. That's going in my list of things my students get to hate me for.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> And that was the point in the article.  That some systems and the hierarchy that it produces, is the problem.


I don't think the hierarchy they were talking about was that promotion to BB. I think they're talking about all the ranks above that, and the political crap that sometimes goes on over and within those ranks.


----------



## Buka (Jul 27, 2017)

Some people just aren't good teachers, despite how much knowledge, technical proficiency, years studied, or winning fighting experience they have.


----------



## KPM (Jul 27, 2017)

If you didn't like Rackemann's last article, you'll probably hate his follow on article.  But I think its pretty good!

Why doesn't Wing Chun work? - Rackemann Wing Chun


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 27, 2017)

KPM said:


> If you didn't like Rackemann's last article, you'll probably hate his follow on article.  But I think its pretty good!
> 
> Why doesn't Wing Chun work? - Rackemann Wing Chun



You would be correct.

That article is just as bad.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 27, 2017)

Steve said:


> If the system is sound, and the expectation is that a black belt will be a competent instructor, then they won't be promoted until they meet that standard.   If they don't, that's on the system, not on the person who was promoted before they were ready.



for the most part, 0ast first level (dan) black yes, but many of the schools/federations I know of either directly, or via others, First level is about the student.  It's kata, drills, sparring etc.  After that then you get into having to not only pass physical tests, some even require papers to be written, for you to show "teaching talent." etc.

Again I am not saying its on the person promoted, there are a lot of messed up systems/federations out there though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2017)

KPM said:


> If you didn't like Rackemann's last article, you'll probably hate his follow on article.  But I think its pretty good!
> 
> Why doesn't Wing Chun work? - Rackemann Wing Chun


His arrogance isn't improved, though he makes some better points. He demonstrates his arrogance, though, when he discusses BJJ as being so very different from the "old school Japanese jujitsu" - ignoring the fact that the jujitsu it derived from (Judo was often called jujitsu at the time) has similar training methods.

The concept of "aliveness" is a good differentiator. It's not everything (a lot of drills depend on limiting this factor, in every art I'm personally aware of), but it's an important factor in training. I don't know a good substitute for having at least some of this in your training. His point about resistance sounds like some I've heard before, which tend to focus on someone teaching a technique/response (which will pretty much never have resistance - you need to be able to show people the technique in question, rather than whatever is appropriate for the resistance given). The problem isn't a cooperative partner (we all use those to varying extents) - it's the lack of ever moving to a resisting one.


----------



## Steve (Jul 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> for the most part, 0ast first level (dan) black yes, but many of the schools/federations I know of either directly, or via others, First level is about the student.  It's kata, drills, sparring etc.  After that then you get into having to not only pass physical tests, some even require papers to be written, for you to show "teaching talent." etc.
> 
> Again I am not saying its on the person promoted, there are a lot of messed up systems/federations out there though.


I don't think we're disagreeing on much, if anything.   Just trying to ensure my point was clear to avoid any misunderstanding.


----------



## anerlich (Jul 27, 2017)

In the second article, he sounds like he just finished watching his first Matt Thornton video or recently started BJJ. People have been saying all of what he said for twenty years.


----------



## KPM (Jul 28, 2017)

*His arrogance isn't improved, though he makes some better points. He demonstrates his arrogance, though, when he discusses BJJ as being so very different from the "old school Japanese jujitsu" - ignoring the fact that the jujitsu it derived from (Judo was often called jujitsu at the time) has similar training methods.*

---He didn't ignore that fact at all.  He pointed out that Japanese Ju Jitsu went to Brazil and when taught outside of the typical "traditional" JMA context it began to change.  They added much more "aliveness" to the training and got away from a lot of the "traditional" protocol.... and their version of JJ evolved.  Now they do MANY things that are not found in Japanese JJ or Judo and continue to develop more in response to the demands of the fighting environment they find themselves in.  I didn't think that observation was arrogant at all, and I believe most BJJ guys would agree with him.


*The concept of "aliveness" is a good differentiator. It's not everything (a lot of drills depend on limiting this factor, in every art I'm personally aware of), but it's an important factor in training.*

---Yeah.  And of course Rackemann is not the first one to come up with this!  Bruce Lee talked about it, and it has been something Matt Thornton has really emphasized for at least 15 years now. 


* The problem isn't a cooperative partner (we all use those to varying extents) - it's the lack of ever moving to a resisting one.*

---True.  And I don't think he would disagree.


----------



## KPM (Jul 28, 2017)

anerlich said:


> In the second article, he sounds like he just finished watching his first Matt Thornton video or recently started BJJ. People have been saying all of what he said for twenty years.



I agree!  He is just pointing it out to his Wing Chun colleagues, who sometimes seem to forget about the topic.


----------



## jobo (Jul 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> If you didn't like Rackemann's last article, you'll probably hate his follow on article.  But I think its pretty good!
> 
> Why doesn't Wing Chun work? - Rackemann Wing Chun


but he has,changed his position considerably from one article to the next. The first was,,,, that your art is useless, a fantasy that is beyond hope. The,second is any art is good, if its trained with,aliveness. It's difficult to argue with the,second, some element of sparing is required to make the bridge between practise and a real fight.I don't think any one denies that? So is he now admitting he was wrong in the first article? Seems so

but he is still overly critical of forms, kata. They are extremely useful as developing movement patterns, that they don't resemble a fight is besides the point, they are not supposed to


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> If you didn't like Rackemann's last article, you'll probably hate his follow on article.  But I think its pretty good!
> 
> Why doesn't Wing Chun work? - Rackemann Wing Chun


I stopped about half way through.  I have a strong opinion about what makes someone effective in a martial art system and much of it can be boiled down into one general statement.  We fight the way we train.

It's not enough to have resistance. Point sparring has resistance.   Resistance must be viewed in context.  Techniques must be applied in context.  The way I drive my car on sunny days is not the same way I drive my car on rainy days. Martial arts are the same way.  WC vs WC approach will not work when the "weather forecast" is WC vs BJJ.

From what I've seen by teaching most people just fail to try to use the techniques that they drill during sparring and as a result do not get the practice they need to successfully apply the technique in competitive sparring.


----------



## jobo (Jul 28, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I stopped about half way through.  I have a strong opinion about what makes someone effective in a martial art system and much of it can be boiled down into one general statement.  We fight the way we train.
> 
> It's not enough to have resistance. Point sparring has resistance.   Resistance must be viewed in context.  Techniques must be applied in context.  The way I drive my car on sunny days is not the same way I drive my car on rainy days. Martial arts are the same way.  WC vs WC approach will not work when the "weather forecast" is WC vs BJJ.
> 
> From what I've seen by teaching most people just fail to try to use the techniques that they drill during sparring and as a result do not get the practice they need to successfully apply the technique in competitive sparring.


but the big issue, is that to declare something useless for,self defence, which is what he did in the first article, is to ignore the fact that there is no standard attacker and all art will work against some people and no art will work against others


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> If you didn't like Rackemann's last article, you'll probably hate his follow on article.  But I think its pretty good!
> 
> Why doesn't Wing Chun work? - Rackemann Wing Chun


Alright, I sacrificed five minutes of my life to read this fellow's ramblings and mumblings.

He is entitled to his opinion, and he is not satisfied with the training he did in wing chun.  There is really a very simple answer to that conundrum:  he should do something else instead.  Problem solved.  And that goes for anyone else who wants to go on and on about how Wing chun [state your favorite style to hate] sucks.

Seriously, he says he has trained in wing chun for ten years, and it does make me wonder a couple of things.  Why does he think this puts him in a position to pass such wide judgement, as it is not such a long time, and why did it take him ten years to figure out he doesn't like something?

My take is this: wing chun is a poor choice for him, he should do something else.  Perhaps any traditional method would be a poor choice for him, as he does not trust the underlying approach that these methods can take.  He wants something different, and it sounds to me like a competition-focused MMA type gym would be a good choice for him.  Good luck to him in his new endeavor.

He may have had a poor teacher, and/or he may have been a poor student.  Those are issues of an altogether different sort.  If the latter, he isn't going to have much success in an MMA gym either, and perhaps he should take up knitting instead.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> His arrogance isn't improved, though he makes some better points. He demonstrates his arrogance, though, when he discusses BJJ as being so very different from the "old school Japanese jujitsu" - ignoring the fact that the jujitsu it derived from (Judo was often called jujitsu at the time) has similar training methods.
> 
> The concept of "aliveness" is a good differentiator. It's not everything (a lot of drills depend on limiting this factor, in every art I'm personally aware of), but it's an important factor in training. I don't know a good substitute for having at least some of this in your training. His point about resistance sounds like some I've heard before, which tend to focus on someone teaching a technique/response (which will pretty much never have resistance - you need to be able to show people the technique in question, rather than whatever is appropriate for the resistance given). The problem isn't a cooperative partner (we all use those to varying extents) - it's the lack of ever moving to a resisting one.



The instructor has to have knowledge of a resisting partner. So when he says "a person will probably do this."  He has a vague clue what a person will probably do.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2017)

Steve said:


> Agreed.   And if the results aren't directly connected to the expectations, there is a flaw in the system.   but it's not specific to the heirarchy.   The heirarchy is one example.   If the system expects black belts to be able to juggle five knives, but doesn't train them to be able to juggle at all, the system is flawed.   Not the fault of the students.



A martial art is not really progressed by its founders or instructors. It is progressed by its practitioners. 

The heirachy can limit this progress


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> The instructor has to have knowledge of a resisting partner. So when he says "a person will probably do this."  He has a vague clue what a person will probably do.


Agreed. I've seen people teach responses to lapel grabs (from a self-defense perspective), acting like the person would hold them in place at half-arm length. That seems among the least likely scenarios with someone providing intent and/or resistance (more likely they're pushing or pulling, and probably punching).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> A martial art is not really progressed by its founders or instructors. It is progressed by its practitioners.
> 
> The heirachy can limit this progress


I agree with the top sentence (insofar as "practitioners" includes instructors). I'm unclear on the last one. Where do you see a hierarchy limiting the progression? Are you talking about the tendency to control curriculum and approach from "higher up" in the hierarchy?


----------



## Steve (Jul 28, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Alright, I sacrificed five minutes of my life to read this fellow's ramblings and mumblings.
> 
> He is entitled to his opinion, and he is not satisfied with the training he did in wing chun.  There is really a very simple answer to that conundrum:  he should do something else instead.  Problem solved.  And that goes for anyone else who wants to go on and on about how Wing chun [state your favorite style to hate] sucks.
> 
> ...


There is a conundrum here.   If someone criticizes a style he or she has never trained, the criticism is dismissed because he or she couldn't know.   That's been your position and it's a common one.

But now, a guy who says he's trained in a style for a decade criticizes a style and is dismissed because... why again?   He just should train something else?  

That's pretty silly to me.


----------



## Steve (Jul 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> A martial art is not really progressed by its founders or instructors. It is progressed by its practitioners.
> 
> The heirachy can limit this progress


I'm speaking more to a training structure.   I'm a firm believer to teaching to the test, and having the test be the gateway to application.   That's for all things, not just martial arts.   So if the students are having trouble doing what you expect, you should look at the system.  Probably a disconnect between the outcome you expect, what you're teaching and what you're testing.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I agree with the top sentence (insofar as "practitioners" includes instructors). I'm unclear on the last one. Where do you see a hierarchy limiting the progression? Are you talking about the tendency to control curriculum and approach from "higher up" in the hierarchy?



Story time.

We had some gun BJJ black belts rock up to our no gi class. During drilling out purple belt was coaching them.

Then he found out they were gun black belts and apologised. The response was. "No that is good everyone has something to teach"

This is what fundamentally drives BJJs progression forwards faster than a style that has to wait for advancements to be filtered down from the beurocracy.

This is because more people are actively advancing the progression of the style. It is a basic numbers game.


----------



## KPM (Jul 28, 2017)

*but he has,changed his position considerably from one article to the next. The first was,,,, that your art is useless, a fantasy that is beyond hope. The,second is any art is good, if its trained with,aliveness. *

---Not really.  In the first article he gave a list of what he considers elements of a "Fantasy Art."  In the second article he described what he thinks is a major element in an "effective art."   So the conclusion would seem to be that a "Fantasy art" can be made more realistic and "effective" by incorporating the element of "aliveness" in training.  I don't see anything contradictory or as being a "change in position."


*but he is still overly critical of forms, kata. They are extremely useful as developing movement patterns, that they don't resemble a fight is besides the point, they are not supposed to*

----Yes.  I agree with you here!  I do think he downplays the role of forms too much.  Though he did admit that he teaches the Wing Chun element as short drills.  I haven't seen what these drills look like, but in theory he is simply doing the same thing that Pin Sun Wing Chun does.  Pin Sun does not use the longer forms like other Wing Chun.  Pin Sun teaches "short sets" or "san sik", and then teaches two man application for each one, practices each one on the dummy, and puts each one into both Chi Sau and San Sau.  So it sounds like Rackemann may also be doing a "San Sik-based" version of Wing Chun Boxing.  He just doesn't think of this short sets the same way as the longer forms.  But I don't think there is really that much of a  difference.


----------



## KPM (Jul 28, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I stopped about half way through.  I have a strong opinion about what makes someone effective in a martial art system and much of it can be boiled down into one general statement.  We fight the way we train.
> 
> It's not enough to have resistance. Point sparring has resistance.   Resistance must be viewed in context.  Techniques must be applied in context.  The way I drive my car on sunny days is not the same way I drive my car on rainy days. Martial arts are the same way.  WC vs WC approach will not work when the "weather forecast" is WC vs BJJ.
> 
> From what I've seen by teaching most people just fail to try to use the techniques that they drill during sparring and as a result do not get the practice they need to successfully apply the technique in competitive sparring.



I don't think Rackemann would disagree  with you.  And I fail to see why you didn't bother to read the whole article.


----------



## KPM (Jul 28, 2017)

Steve said:


> There is a conundrum here.   If someone criticizes a style he or she has never trained, the criticism is dismissed because he or she couldn't know.   That's been your position and it's a common one.
> 
> But now, a guy who says he's trained in a style for a decade criticizes a style and is dismissed because... why again?   He just should train something else?
> 
> That's pretty silly to me.


 
Absolutely!  The ramblings of people who want to dismiss the observations of someone with extensive background in an art under a well-known and well-respected Sifu starts to sound like a case of maybe the points being made striking a little to close to home for comfort.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> I don't think Rackemann would disagree  with you.  And I fail to see why you didn't bother to read the whole article.


I didn't read the rest of the article because I knew the second half would consist of wording that attempts to support the first half that I didn't agree with.  There have already been comments against the article that I would say myself.  For example: The article  must have mentioned something about forms and their usefulness being minimum.  I don't think of my forms as minimum usefulness.  To me my forms are core.  When I train techniques, I pull the technique from the form.  I think about how I perform that part of the form.  Every now and then I'll do a technique from the form out of the blue while free sparring.  This happens because I did the technique a lot of times in the form.  My forms also provide  cardio workout, muscle building, muscle endurance, transition timing between techniques,  trains "muscle memory" and focus.  By the way others responded, I doubt that much or any of that is in the article.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> I don't think Rackemann would disagree  with you.  And I fail to see why you didn't bother to read the whole article.


By the way just because some one wouldn't disagree with me doesn't mean that what they are saying is correct or accurate.  Articles about "fantasy martial" tend to be generalizations taken from one perspective. Rarely do they include research where they seek to find if someone trains in a way that proves their assumption wrong.   For example the MMA vs TaI Chi fight is the source of "Does Tai Chi really work." and no one goes beyond that to see if people can actually fight using Tai Chi. From that they will make assumptions about forms and other aspects about Traditional Martial arts.


----------



## KPM (Jul 28, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I didn't read the rest of the article because I knew the second half would consist of wording that attempts to support the first half that I didn't agree with.  There have already been comments against the article that I would say myself.  For example: The article  must have mentioned something about forms and their usefulness being minimum.  I don't think of my forms as minimum usefulness.  To me my forms are core.  When I train techniques, I pull the technique from the form.  I think about how I perform that part of the form.  Every now and then I'll do a technique from the form out of the blue while free sparring.  This happens because I did the technique a lot of times in the form.  My forms also provide  cardio workout, muscle building, muscle endurance, transition timing between techniques,  trains "muscle memory" and focus.  By the way others responded, I doubt that much or any of that is in the article.



I'll repeat what I said above:

Though he did admit that he teaches the Wing Chun element as short drills. I haven't seen what these drills look like, but in theory he is simply doing the same thing that Pin Sun Wing Chun does. Pin Sun does not use the longer forms like other Wing Chun. Pin Sun teaches "short sets" or "san sik", and then teaches two man application for each one, practices each one on the dummy, and puts each one into both Chi Sau and San Sau. So it sounds like Rackemann may also be doing a "San Sik-based" version of Wing Chun Boxing. He just doesn't think of these short sets the same way as the longer forms. But I don't think there is really that much of a difference.

So I'm not sure he  would actually disagree with what you wrote.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Story time.
> 
> We had some gun BJJ black belts rock up to our no gi class. During drilling out purple belt was coaching them.
> 
> ...


Interesting. I viewed the NGAA as having a pretty strong hierarchy, but saw most of the innovation come from individual schools (from the experienced folks in them), rather than from further up in the hierarchy. Fine-tuning came from higher up, and innovation came from experienced students and individual instructors. 

I do think that a hierarchy can stifle some innovation - it's one of the reasons I haven't rejoined the NGAA, in spite of an invitation to do so. I prefer to have the freedom to do as I see fit with the curriculum.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Story time.
> 
> We had some gun BJJ black belts rock up to our no gi class. During drilling out purple belt was coaching them.
> 
> ...


Another thought - one of my personal gripes is that too few students understand that the folks above them don't actually get everything right. I'm rarely corrected (or even questioned) on my technique by even purple belts when I visit someone's school (where I participate as a student). I'd expect a purple belt to have some good thoughts I don't have - I remember hearing those when I was a purple belt.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Another thought - one of my personal gripes is that too few students understand that the folks above them don't actually get everything right. I'm rarely corrected (or even questioned) on my technique by even purple belts when I visit someone's school (where I participate as a student). I'd expect a purple belt to have some good thoughts I don't have - I remember hearing those when I was a purple belt.


To have a lower belt correct an upper belt would be something that many egos couldn't deal with.  Then you have the time and place for correction.  Something have to be corrected after class as not to put the instructor in an uncomfortable position.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 29, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> To have a lower belt correct an upper belt would be something that many egos couldn't deal with.  Then you have the time and place for correction.  Something have to be corrected after class as not to put the instructor in an uncomfortable position.


Remember that when I'm there, I'm not there as an instructor (though that's a fuzzy distinction to the students). I'm working directly with one or two people, usually the same ones for the entire class. I'm just not a fan of training partners not giving that feedback. IME, that's only a (large-ish) step away from falling because they are "supposed to".


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Remember that when I'm there, I'm not there as an instructor (though that's a fuzzy distinction to the students). I'm working directly with one or two people, usually the same ones for the entire class. I'm just not a fan of training partners not giving that feedback. IME, that's only a (large-ish) step away from falling because they are "supposed to".


I don't mind learning and I've been wrong before, so I encourage students to let me know if I made a mistake or not.  My Sifu used to say things wrong just to see if we would correct him.  He saw the ability of a student to recognize an error from the instructor a good thing.  He says that means that we understand what we are seeing, understand the technique, and have learned what was taught.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 29, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't mind learning and I've been wrong before, so I encourage students to let me know if I made a mistake or not.  My Sifu used to say things wrong just to see if we would correct him.  He saw the ability of a student to recognize an error from the instructor a good thing.  He says that means that we understand what we are seeing, understand the technique, and have learned what was taught.


I think it also shows the students have their brains turned on, rather than just taking in what the instructor says without consideration.


----------



## KPM (Jul 30, 2017)

Here is another article from Rackemann for you guys not to like.     The theme is related to the other 2 articles on this thread.

Why Traditional Martial Artists can’t beat MMA Fighters (but could) - Rackemann Wing Chun


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> Here is another article from Rackemann for you guys not to like.     The theme is related to the other 2 articles on this thread.
> 
> Why Traditional Martial Artists can’t beat MMA Fighters (but could) - Rackemann Wing Chun




Well really all that article says is what most of us have been saying for a while, if you boil it down.  How do you make TMA's work in multiple contexts?
1. real pressure testing via sparring/free fighting/occupation.
2. pressure test against other styles and not insularly.

At the beginning it does, to an extent, make a point I ma been trying to make for a while though.  MMA has, to an extent, become a fighting style in and of itself.  In the early years it was a hot bed of innovation but it has, with a few exceptions become kinda static (UFC Gyms everywhere anyone?)  The few people that go outside the box (Sylva, Machida, Jones, McGregor) do very well by going outside the "MMA Box" but that seems to often be dismissed by other fighters and coaches as "they are/were just so good they could get away with it."  In short it's almost as if MMA is slowly but surely falling into the same trap too many TMAs have.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> That conclusion seems odd to me.  He was talking about the study of martial arts when he made those points, not the writing of articles on a blogsite.   And it seems odd to disregard an article based upon the composer's writing abilities rather than his actual points.



The Author's points were to avoid fakes and they provided examples. In providing the examples they did in the manner they told you to avoid. 
So I should believe the snake oil sales person because someone wrote about an article about Big Pharma?

KPM - it is a free site and as long as we all follow the rules we can express our opinions. 

I find it odd, that one cannot apply logic to all things in their life and be consistent. If you choose to be inconsistent and or to allow those poor arguments to stand in your life that is cool for you. Not for me. 

So to me it seems odd to not pay attention to my well written summary and opinion on a poorly written article that is inconsistent. His proved that he should not be paid attention too by his points. So In following that logic I will ignore him and continue to apply logic to my life and my choices.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> Here is another article from Rackemann for you guys not to like.     The theme is related to the other 2 articles on this thread.
> 
> Why Traditional Martial Artists can’t beat MMA Fighters (but could) - Rackemann Wing Chun


This is a much better article.  He doesn't come off as if he's upset about something.  The reading of it is much cleaner.  There is a big difference between this article and the other previous articles.  The fact that I made it all the way through this article is a good sign.  


This quote from the article "I blame traditional martial arts not performing so well because of poor development of the fighting attributes, not ineffective techniques."  This is a yes and no type statement.  If you actually go into a traditional martial arts school you will see that many of the adult students don't care about the fighting.  I do think however, this applies to many youth taking martial arts.  In a world where many parents are over protective, it's common to see martial arts schools cater to the nature of being weak vs being physically conditioned to be tough.  I think many schools (for financial reasons) decided to pick one form of training over another.  In other words they began to cater to those who really don't want to learn how to fight, instead of making sure that they could provide lessons for both the students that don't want to fight and the students who want to fight.


----------



## KPM (Jul 30, 2017)

*The Author's points were to avoid fakes and they provided examples. In providing the examples they did in the manner they told you to avoid. So I should believe the snake oil sales person because someone wrote about an article about Big Pharma?*

---"They"....they who?     What are you even talking about?   Maybe you are referring to this statement by Rackemann at the beginning of the a article?

*Though these false statements made by martial arts instructors and students alike, are not always done intentionally. More often than not the source of their claims originate out of ignorance.*

---He then provided a list of things to look for that might signal a "fantasy martial art" if the statements made were indeed false.  He didn't say it applied to every martial art other than his own.  He just provided a list of possible warning signs to watch out for.  If they don't apply to you, then why are you taking such offense at it?

*KPM - it is a free site and as long as we all follow the rules we can express our opinions. *

----Well sure.  I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion.  I just  said it seemed odd that it appeared you were disregarding the points he made in the article simply because you didn't like the way he wrote it.


*I find it odd, that one cannot apply logic to all things in their life and be consistent. If you choose to be inconsistent and or to allow those poor arguments to stand in your life that is cool for you. Not for me. *

----Why are you acting all "butt hurt"?  I haven't been inconsistent about anything. 

*So to me it seems odd to not pay attention to my well written summary and opinion on a poorly written article that is inconsistent.*

---Is this the "well written summary and opinion" you are talking about?  

*One can make those points. 
I just thought it was overly long which is one of the points the article says to avoid. 
I found that some of the points were argued around and not directly head on - which is another point the article said to avoid. 
So if you followed half the article one would not read the article at all  
The hypocrisy and inconsistencies made me frustrated and thinking it was poorly written. 

As to needing to test your techniques or pressure test I agree. 
As to needing to work with those outside your circle to do that to see different angles and techniques and perspectives then yes. 

Yet, there was a lot of fluff to say what I said in two lines. 
*
---No offense, but I think you may be criticizing someone else's writing style while over-estimating your own.  



*His proved that he should not be paid attention too by his points. So In following that logic I will ignore him and continue to apply logic to my life and my choices.*

---So, you are saying that just because you took offense at his list of "warning signs" and disagree with them, you feel that everyone should just ignore his points and not read his article?  You've determined that he is a "snake oil salesman" without even really considering his points?  But you are lecturing me about "logic' and "life choices" and such?


----------



## geezer (Jul 30, 2017)

Based on JowGa's comments above, I gave this second article a read. Much better than the first. Nothing all that new or earth-shaking, but on the mark IMO. Interesting enough to make me want to go to Youtube and check out what this guy, Rackemann does. He calls his stuff "Wing Chun Boxing", so I think I'll post it on KPM's _Wing Chun Boxing_ thread and see what you guys think.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 30, 2017)

geezer said:


> Based on JowGa's comments above, I gave this second article a read. Much better than the first. Nothing all that new or earth-shaking, but on the mark IMO. Interesting enough to make me want to go to Youtube and check out what this guy, Rackemann does. He calls his stuff "Wing Chun Boxing", so I think I'll post it on KPM's _Wing Chun Boxing_ thread and see what you guys think.


I'll definitely be on that thread when you get it started.  I have lots to say after watching his video.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 30, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Well really all that article says is what most of us have been saying for a while, if you boil it down.  How do you make TMA's work in multiple contexts?
> 1. real pressure testing via sparring/free fighting/occupation.
> 2. pressure test against other styles and not insularly.
> 
> At the beginning it does, to an extent, make a point I ma been trying to make for a while though.  MMA has, to an extent, become a fighting style in and of itself.  In the early years it was a hot bed of innovation but it has, with a few exceptions become kinda static (UFC Gyms everywhere anyone?)  The few people that go outside the box (Sylva, Machida, Jones, McGregor) do very well by going outside the "MMA Box" but that seems to often be dismissed by other fighters and coaches as "they are/were just so good they could get away with it."  In short it's almost as if MMA is slowly but surely falling into the same trap too many TMAs have.



There are other advancements being made than just crazy obvious stuff.

For example. Our single leg footwork is exactly the same as our double leg footwork. Doesn't look like much. But what it does is streamlines the transition between striking and grappling. My penetration step is my striking then I can decide based on opportunity which takedown I hit.

And in my opinion a much more impactfull innovation than crane kicks.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> There are other advancements being made than just crazy obvious stuff.
> 
> For example. Our single leg footwork is exactly the same as our double leg footwork. Doesn't look like much. But what it does is streamlines the transition between striking and grappling. My penetration step is my striking then I can decide based on opportunity which takedown I hit.
> 
> And in my opinion a much more impactfull innovation than crane kicks.



The thing is though what you describe, in general, isn't unique to MMA.  The "penetration step" and what you do next is in many a TMA that includes both striking and grappling. It isn't really an innovation it's always been there. If it wasn't I would not have find myself saying "do I want to "just trap and strike, or do I want to grapple and take down" with my Wing Chun.

Now I am not saying the following is YOUR mindset but more than a few in the MMA community seem to be doing the same thing they accuse TMAs of doing, namely not having an open mind and adapting things from other styles.  The big complaint about TMA's is/was that they are insular, that they look to improve based on what is already "in the system."  The same thing has not been uncommon with many an MMA coach for a bit now.  Where MMA used to be about looking for the techniques that work across the multitude of Martial Arts, now there is a tendency to look at what you have and simply refine or create a new variation based on what already exists.  The same thing that was/is the criticism of many a TMA.

This is what happens when something that was once "free form" ends up "working."  There is a tendency in every human endeavor to say "if it isn't broke don't fix it."  That is a practical axiom but it also has complications attached.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 31, 2017)

KPM said:


> Here is another article from Rackemann for you guys not to like.     The theme is related to the other 2 articles on this thread.
> 
> Why Traditional Martial Artists can’t beat MMA Fighters (but could) - Rackemann Wing Chun


This one I like a lot better. It matches my experience and observations pretty well.


----------



## anerlich (Jul 31, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> more than a few in the MMA community seem to be doing the same thing they accuse TMAs of doing, namely not having an open mind and adapting things from other styles. The big complaint about TMA's is/was that they are insular, that they look to improve based on what is already "in the system." The same thing has not been uncommon with many an MMA coach for a bit now. Where MMA used to be about looking for the techniques that work across the multitude of Martial Arts, now there is a tendency to look at what you have and simply refine or create a new variation based on what already exists. The same thing that was/is the criticism of many a TMA.



Have you actually spent a significant amount of time with any successful MMA coaches? Because your generalisations here don't fit my experience at all.

I am acquainted reasonably well with four successful MMA coaches, two of whom are UFC veterans. I see and train with one of them several times a week, and work out with his MMA fighters.

These guys are CONTINUALLY seeking out new material, technique, training protocols, equipment. And continually going to or bringing in other coaches. My BJJ coach, who runs the oldest MMA gym in Sydney, has had visiting US wrestlers, a Judo 6th Dan, boxers, kickboxers, combatives teachers, etc. etc, teaching their stuff at the gym for periods of months. He's spent time with my WC instructor, who was also his BJJ student for quite a while. He's continually going to seminars and having visitors in to help tweak his game and widen his perspective on multiple fronts..

I am acquainted with a couple of 5th degree black belts, one of whom was also Royce Gracie's S&C coach for the early UFCs. Both are travelling extensively looking for people to help improve their skills in particular areas. One just spent a period in the US upgrading his leglock game to world class. The other goes to places like Mongolia and Russia seeking wrestling and conditioning knowledge, despite being one of the longest running and best known fight conditioning coaches on the planet.

One of my training buds won an MMA title with a gogoplata (as an avid observer of MMA, you'll know what that is). Another female fighter from my gym is on her second trip to JacksonWink  - they have equipment and innovative training protocols that most TMA guys have not even heard of. She has a pretty sweet spinning hook kick to the head in her arsenal as well.

Do you really think coaches like Firas Zahabi, John Danaher, and Jackson / Winklejohn are sticking to what they know? They are innovators, very good at what they do, and go to MMA because smart people go where the money is. Jiu Jitsu, which is a major part of MMA, is continually evolving, inside multiple rule sets. The evolution of TMAs and their training methods have moved with glacial slowness in comparison.

Most good MMA coaches are too busy learning and innovating to bother criticising TMA's. Time is limited and they do not wish to waste it on unproductive pursuits. I suggest you follow their example and not worry about what people outside your selected domain might be doing, or saying.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 31, 2017)

anerlich said:


> Have you actually spent a significant amount of time with any successful MMA coaches? Because your generalisations here don't fit my experience at all.
> 
> I am acquainted reasonably well with four successful MMA coaches, two of whom are UFC veterans. I see and train with one of them several times a week, and work out with his MMA fighters.
> 
> ...


My comments are based on two different experiences. First yes I do have fairly regular contact with some of them a coaches but admittedly they are the ones teaching at the UFC branded gems so I would not be surprised if in a part of their motive for saying such things is the marketing of their gym.  The other is just reading interviews with MMA coaches and self-declared experts where they criticize traditional martial arts globally or at best will acknowledge the effectiveness only of TMAs (or their derivatives) that are combat sports on their own.   9435 in this case as in most I would never say that my anecdotal experience is emblematic of the whole.. I am heartened to see however that your experience appears to be vastly different than mine.


----------



## Steve (Jul 31, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> My comments are based on two different experiences. First yes I do have fairly regular contact with some of them a coaches but admittedly they are the ones teaching at the UFC branded gems so I would not be surprised if in a part of their motive for saying such things is the marketing of their gym.  The other is just reading interviews with MMA coaches and self-declared experts where they criticize traditional martial arts globally or at best will acknowledge the effectiveness only of TMAs (or their derivatives) that are combat sports on their own.   9435 in this case as in most I would never say that my anecdotal experience is emblematic of the whole.. I am heartened to see however that your experience appears to be vastly different than mine.


Just from what I've seen, mma is very pragmatic.   The gyms tend to focus on what they know works.   Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say.   When a formula works, there isn't a lot of need to innovate.   As soon as a weakness is exposed, it is addressed.

Another facet of this pragmatism, is that there isn't any thought at all given to styles that may or may not work.   Wing chun, for example, just isn't thought about.   If someone were to demonstrate how well it works, it would get some attention.

A third facet of this pragmatism is the acknowledgment that different and better are not necessarily the same thing.   Machida is often pointed to as proof that karate works.   Cool.  But does it work better than western boxing? Or Thai boxing?   Jury's out.   So, great, we know that at least one karateka, who embraced cross training in other styles and the pressure testing required to make it work, did very well.  A mma coach with an extensive background in western boxing might not abandon what he knows works in order to teach some bastardized version of what machida had studied since childhood.   I don't fault them for that.

All said, I think you're seeing pragmatism and mischaracterizing is as rigidity.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 31, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> My comments are based on two different experiences. First yes I do have fairly regular contact with some of them a coaches but admittedly they are the ones teaching at the UFC branded gems so I would not be surprised if in a part of their motive for saying such things is the marketing of their gym.  The other is just reading interviews with MMA coaches and self-declared experts where they criticize traditional martial arts globally or at best will acknowledge the effectiveness only of TMAs (or their derivatives) that are combat sports on their own.   9435 in this case as in most I would never say that my anecdotal experience is emblematic of the whole.. I am heartened to see however that your experience appears to be vastly different than mine.


My experiences are pretty much in line with anerlich's. Most of the MMA coaches I know are very open to learning from a wide variety of sources including TMAs. (Many of them also have substantial backgrounds in TMAs, sometimes including instructor ranks.) Even those who don't care for other systems don't bother to spend time bad-mouthing them.

As far as the UFC branded gyms - do any serious competitors or fight teams actually train at one of those? If so, I haven't heard about it.


----------



## anerlich (Jul 31, 2017)

UFC gyms are mainly fitness gyms using the UFC brand for brand recognition. They have deep pockets and the facilities and equipment are very good. A friend of mine is a BJJ black belt and tertiary qualified S&C coach who ran the BJJ program at the UFC gym in my city for a while. They offer martial arts classes but at the time were all new students. At least where I live, the UFC gym is not even close to the cutting edge of MMA or even training fighters. That is not its market.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 31, 2017)

Steve said:


> Just from what I've seen, mma is very pragmatic.   The gyms tend to focus on what they know works.   Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say.   When a formula works, there isn't a lot of need to innovate.   As soon as a weakness is exposed, it is addressed.
> 
> Another facet of this pragmatism, is that there isn't any thought at all given to styles that may or may not work.   Wing chun, for example, just isn't thought about.   If someone were to demonstrate how well it works, it would get some attention.
> 
> ...



Well I think we are, ultimately, speaking to the same thing.  In my response to Drop I said.  We have a tendency to say "if it's not broke don't fix it".  That is a good axiom but it can occasionally have negative consequences.  Not always, heck perhaps not often, but sometimes it can result in you missing something pretty nice.


----------



## anerlich (Aug 1, 2017)

We also have a tendency to be distracted by bright shiny objects that can drag us away from our original goals if not kept in check. Both settling for "good enough" and always looking over the fence at the other guy's grass and how green it is are human proclivities that need to be managed if we are to achieve our full potential.


----------



## frank raud (Aug 17, 2017)

DaveB said:


> You mean the modern combat sport of judo?
> 
> Old judo had forms at high level.


Judo still has forms(Kata). In fact, kata is a requirement for most belt promotions in most countries.


----------

