# OMG a balanced video on MMA vs TMA?!?!?!?!?!



## Juany118 (Jun 7, 2017)

I actually found this rather logical and much more balanced than almost any video I have seen on the topic.  I am interested on the views of other people.

Keep in mind he is addressing it in the context of in the Ring vs. on the Street against a Street attacker (robber, person looking to assault you etc.)  not what we usually see which is MMA solely against TMA.  He also notes the importance of the "approach" and "intent" of the practitioner such as the difference between someone training to deescalate violence vs escalation etc.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 7, 2017)

Not balanced nor accurate.


----------



## jobo (Jun 7, 2017)

I got two mins in and he has sais nothing at all apart from uuuuum and urmmmmmm. So i gave up.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2017)

You know how I say things are story based?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2017)

jobo said:


> I got two mins in and he has sais nothing at all apart from uuuuum and urmmmmmm. So i gave up.



Nobody ever shapes up or moves intelligently in a street fight. So they move more predictably so tma will work. Where as in a ring fight. Well they can actually fight. So it is different.

He is basically saying MMA is some kind of super power.

He also went into street fighters over committing punches. Some psychology and then I ran out of phone credit.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2017)

By the way the difference is some of your objectives are different. Some of their objective s are different and so there is more advantage to certain tactical approaches.

So for example. If you have unlimited space. Your ability to cover a large amount of ground becomes important. You may have to run forwards to engage or run away to evade.

That sort of thing changes up what you can do successfully.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 7, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Nobody ever shapes up or moves intelligently in a street fight. So they move more predictably so tma will work. Where as in a ring fight. Well they can actually fight. So it is different.
> 
> He is basically saying MMA is some kind of super power.
> 
> He also went into street fighters over committing punches. Some psychology and then I ran out of phone credit.


I watched the entire thing and it was a bunch of conflicting statements where he would say one thing about a topic and then he would say the opposite later on.  It just ended up sounding like an complex excuse for why TMA "Grandmasters" get their butts handed to them by MMA.   It makes me sick to my stomach.  No one would think less of TMA if they just admit that not all TMA have of focus on learning how to fight, or learning how to use the martial arts technique in the fight.  What is worse is that later on towards the end that he doesn't teach martial arts, but he teaches the combat aspects of martial arts... or something like that.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 7, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I watched the entire thing and it was a bunch of conflicting statements where he would say one thing about a topic and then he would say the opposite later on.  It just ended up sounding like an complex excuse for why TMA "Grandmasters" get their butts handed to them by MMA.   It makes me sick to my stomach.  No one would think less of TMA if they just admit that not all TMA have of focus on learning how to fight, or learning how to use the martial arts technique in the fight.  What is worse is that later on towards the end that he doesn't teach martial arts, but he teaches the combat aspects of martial arts... or something like that.



I guess I read between the lines.  When he spoke of intent and focus I was saying "you have teachers who teach in the 'traditional' method and those who teach in what is now sometimes called a 'combative' method."  It took me, literally, over a year to find my current teacher who teaches a combative method and who has used WC and Kali in real life encounters as a LEO.  That mindset difference, which the video does address at points, is why I like it. So perhaps I was projecting my own personal journey to find a teacher that specifically addressed the specifics of true "street level" violence and how it relates to Martial Arts in General?


----------



## DanT (Jun 7, 2017)

Almost every technique in generic MMA can be found in Kung Fu. The difference is that MMA people train to fight, 99.9 percent of Kung Fu people like dancing around and talking while Chi Saoing. The difference is between the ears mostly.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 7, 2017)

DanT said:


> Almost every technique in generic MMA can be found in Kung Fu. The difference is that MMA people train to fight, 99.9 percent of Kung Fu people like dancing around and talking while Chi Saoing. The difference is between the ears mostly.


This is the one thing I think he misses and we talk about it a lot around here...the need of pressure testing to really prepare for real fights.


----------



## DanT (Jun 7, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> This is the one thing I think he misses and we talk about it a lot around here...the need of pressure testing to really prepare for real fights.


Exactly, none of this Form mumbo jumbo. Forms are a modern invention. Back in the good old days when Kung fu was an actual battlefield art it was just drills for kills. Chop the head and side kick. Back fist and front kick. Etc etc.

 Now a days people just dance around instead of using Kung Fu training for what it was designed: killing people on the battlefield (hence the broadsword, spear, etc.) 

People ask "what about inner peace?" I always reply, "inner peace comes from knowing you can kill people at will with your bare hands, but choose not to."


----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I watched the entire thing and it was a bunch of conflicting statements where he would say one thing about a topic and then he would say the opposite later on.  It just ended up sounding like an complex excuse for why TMA "Grandmasters" get their butts handed to them by MMA.   It makes me sick to my stomach.  No one would think less of TMA if they just admit that not all TMA have of focus on learning how to fight, or learning how to use the martial arts technique in the fight.  What is worse is that later on towards the end that he doesn't teach martial arts, but he teaches the combat aspects of martial arts... or something like that.



RSBD I guessed that from the shirt.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> This is the one thing I think he misses and we talk about it a lot around here...the need of pressure testing to really prepare for real fights.



He side stepped that with the nobody ever fights like they know what they are doing stuff.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I guess I read between the lines.  When he spoke of intent and focus I was saying "you have teachers who teach in the 'traditional' method and those who teach in what is now sometimes called a 'combative' method."  It took me, literally, over a year to find my current teacher who teaches a combative method and who has used WC and Kali in real life encounters as a LEO.  That mindset difference, which the video does address at points, is why I like it. So perhaps I was projecting my own personal journey to find a teacher that specifically addressed the specifics of true "street level" violence and how it relates to Martial Arts in General?



What was he saying about mind set?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 7, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I guess I read between the lines.  When he spoke of intent and focus I was saying "you have teachers who teach in the 'traditional' method and those who teach in what is now sometimes called a 'combative' method."  It took me, literally, over a year to find my current teacher who teaches a combative method and who has used WC and Kali in real life encounters as a LEO.  That mindset difference, which the video does address at points, is why I like it. So perhaps I was projecting my own personal journey to find a teacher that specifically addressed the specifics of true "street level" violence and how it relates to Martial Arts in General?


That's just it.  The "Traditional Method" is all about combat. Everything from the conditioning exercises to the strength building exercises, and the weapons, say as much. It screams combat.  It think the problem is that China cracked down on many schools who taught martial arts as it truly should be and in their place changed the perception of martial arts as being all about being honorable and not about fighting.   In my eyes, the training isn't about fighting, but the use of it in a Self-Defense aspect is.

It's like shooting a gun.  People shoot at targets, it's not about killing, it's about hitting the target.  But that changes when the target becomes an animal or a violent attacker in the context of self-defense.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 8, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> That's just it.  The "Traditional Method" is all about combat. Everything from the conditioning exercises to the strength building exercises, and the weapons, say as much. It screams combat.  It think the problem is that China cracked down on many schools who taught martial arts as it truly should be and in their place changed the perception of martial arts as being all about being honorable and not about fighting.   In my eyes, the training isn't about fighting, but the use of it in a Self-Defense aspect is.
> 
> It's like shooting a gun.  People shoot at targets, it's not about killing, it's about hitting the target.  But that changes when the target becomes an animal or a violent attacker in the context of self-defense.



Only sort of. We set ourselves up with these lofty goals and in chasing them miss what is going on around us.

So I may not be training for combat but I can punch a guy so hard he pees himself.

I think to a certain degree martial arts is about these little goals that then almost incidentally become those larger ones.


----------



## jobo (Jun 8, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I watched the entire thing and it was a bunch of conflicting statements where he would say one thing about a topic and then he would say the opposite later on.  It just ended up sounding like an complex excuse for why TMA "Grandmasters" get their butts handed to them by MMA.   It makes me sick to my stomach.  No one would think less of TMA if they just admit that not all TMA have of focus on learning how to fight, or learning how to use the martial arts technique in the fight.  What is worse is that later on towards the end that he doesn't teach martial arts, but he teaches the combat aspects of martial arts... or something like that.


I e seen a few such , and there always seem to be a marked disparity between the contestants', with the tma master being smaller older and less conditioned than the mmma fighter.

if there is an intrinsic false hood in tma, it would seem to be that old out of condition small men can hold there own against much younger . Much bigger very fit men


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 8, 2017)

I can sort of see where the guy in the video is coming from, although he is generalising far too much. Yes you will get people on the street who will literally just charge at you with arms flailing and no concern for their own safety, but to assume that they will all do this is dangerous thinking. Yes you are going to get drunken idiots who telegraph all their attacks and have no coordination and training, but you may also get those who do know what they are doing.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 8, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Keep in mind he is addressing it in the context of in the Ring vs. on the Street against a Street attacker (robber, person looking to assault you etc.)


There is no such thing.  Or, rather, there is no way to quantify and qualify it.  A "street attack" and "street fighter" could be, and has been, almost literally anything.  It could be just a monkey dance brawl where no one is really trying to deliberately and permanently injure anyone but, rather, determine dominance and position on the social ladder.  It could be a robbery without intent to harm or a robbery where the robber intends to leave no witnesses.  It could be "the knock out game."  It could be a random murder with any weapon or no weapon at all.  The attacker could be unskilled, untrained, and inexperienced or experienced but untrained, or trained and experienced.  I've seen examples of all.

It is simultaneously everything and nothing at all.  The argument is, therefore, meaningless.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Headhunter (Jun 8, 2017)

Great another one.....who cares if it's balanced why does it even matter. Why does this vs nonsense have to exist...someone enjoys tma more then great, someone enjoys mma more then great. People like different things. Let everyone just get on with their own thing and focus on your life.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Only sort of. We set ourselves up with these lofty goals and in chasing them miss what is going on around us.
> 
> So I may not be training for combat but I can punch a guy so hard he pees himself.
> 
> I think to a certain degree martial arts is about these little goals that then almost incidentally become those larger ones.


I can see this.  TMA often does have some lofty goals.  I try to keep mine simple.  Benefit form the training (including the mental, personal improvement, and non fight related stuff), learn how to use the techniques for self-defense, and be conditioned enough (mentally and physically) to make it through a physical attack.  To be able to punch a guy so hard he pees is combat skill enough.  That means you have the skills to punch someone who doesn't want to be punched (aka moving and not trying to give you a clean shot).  If you can hit a moving target, then that's good enough.  We have all seen "Grandmasters" who have failed even at this.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 8, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Great another one.....who cares if it's balanced why does it even matter. Why does this vs nonsense have to exist...someone enjoys tma more then great, someone enjoys mma more then great. People like different things. Let everyone just get on with their own thing and focus on your life.


Heretic!  The rules are very clear; you must pick one side or the other and praise it & defend it to the end while vilifying and decrying the other for pure, unadulterated, evil.  What are you, a Chevy/Pepsi fan?

Where's my torch and pitchfork?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Headhunter (Jun 8, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Heretic!  The rules are very clear; you must pick one side or the other and praise it & defend it to the end while vilifying and decrying the other for pure, unadulterated, evil.  What are you, a Chevy/Pepsi fan?
> 
> Where's my torch and pitchfork?
> 
> ...


Tbh I'm both sides as Currently I train karate, Muay Thai and Brazilian jiu jitsu and I have trained boxing, Kung fu and taekwondo and it's all good stuff.these arguments are just dumb


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 8, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Great another one.....who cares if it's balanced why does it even matter. Why does this vs nonsense have to exist...someone enjoys tma more then great, someone enjoys mma more then great. People like different things. Let everyone just get on with their own thing and focus on your life.


I agree completely.  It would be better to just state that then to make a 30 minute video like this.  Just say some people train TMA to fight and other's don't.  To me this is much better than trying to hold the image of TMA as "Real kung fu can kill but I train peace"  and then have the same people trying to fight and show that it's effective.  We literally have people who train TMA but not for fighting, going out to fight and prove the effectiveness in an area that they don't train.

I've noticed that this is more of an issue in Chinese Martial Arts than Japanese martial arts or any other martial arts.  That alone should be an telling sign.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 8, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Heretic!  The rules are very clear; you must pick one side or the other and praise it & defend it to the end while vilifying and decrying the other for pure, unadulterated, evil.  What are you, a Chevy/Pepsi fan?
> 
> Where's my torch and pitchfork?
> 
> ...


I brought extras.


----------



## DanT (Jun 8, 2017)

I'm going to say it again in case it was missed:

Kung Fu was originally designed for killing people on the battlefield. Only recently had it become about "self defence" and "inner peace".


----------



## jobo (Jun 8, 2017)

DanT said:


> I'm going to say it again in case it was missed:
> 
> Kung Fu was originally designed for killing people on the battlefield. Only recently had it become about "self defence" and "inner peace".


agree and il restate my point , that these cross style fights seem to have the mma guy at 50 lbs heaver and or 20/30years younger. Of course the tma loose when the odds are stacked like that


----------



## lklawson (Jun 8, 2017)

DanT said:


> I'm going to say it again in case it was missed:
> 
> Kung Fu was originally designed for killing people on the battlefield. Only recently had it become about "self defence" and "inner peace".


And you would be wrong.

Well, partly wrong and partly right.  *SOME* forms of martial arts of Chinese origin may have been designed as "battlefield" <ahem>.  It is also clear that some other forms were designed for other purposes.  Civilian self defense is quite common among those purposes.

The same can be said of martial arts hailing from pretty much any ethnic locality.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## DanT (Jun 8, 2017)

lklawson said:


> And you would be wrong.
> 
> Well, partly wrong and partly right.  *SOME* forms of martial arts of Chinese origin may have been designed as "battlefield" <ahem>.  It is also clear that some other forms were designed for other purposes.  Civilian self defense is quite common among those purposes.
> 
> ...


Yes I agree, I'm just speaking in general terms, and of more ancient CMA. Most of the techniques originate from battlefield arts.


----------



## jobo (Jun 8, 2017)

lklawson said:


> And you would be wrong.
> 
> Well, partly wrong and partly right.  *SOME* forms of martial arts of Chinese origin may have been designed as "battlefield" <ahem>.  It is also clear that some other forms were designed for other purposes.  Civilian self defense is quite common among those purposes.
> 
> ...


why does it matter if it was designed to fight people in a war or designed to fight people in an alley way. To be effective at one it must be equal effective at the other


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> What was he saying about mind set?


Many of his comments, imo come down to mind set.  The ideas of...

1. Thinking and fighting, tactically (testing, etc) vs going all in and over committing.
2. Are you looking to deescalate the encounter and escape or escalate, remain, and eliminate the threat.
3. Is culture important to your training or is it not?

etc.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 8, 2017)

lklawson said:


> There is no such thing.  Or, rather, there is no way to quantify and qualify it.  A "street attack" and "street fighter" could be, and has been, almost literally anything.  It could be just a monkey dance brawl where no one is really trying to deliberately and permanently injure anyone but, rather, determine dominance and position on the social ladder.  It could be a robbery without intent to harm or a robbery where the robber intends to leave no witnesses.  It could be "the knock out game."  It could be a random murder with any weapon or no weapon at all.  The attacker could be unskilled, untrained, and inexperienced or experienced but untrained, or trained and experienced.  I've seen examples of all.
> 
> It is simultaneously everything and nothing at all.  The argument is, therefore, meaningless.
> 
> ...



In my experience though he hits the nail on the head when the line is crossed to physical (non firearm related violence) on the street involving not a bar fight etc but an unprovoked attack.  They swing for the bleachers or move in FAST for a take down. etc.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 8, 2017)

DanT said:


> I'm going to say it again in case it was missed:
> 
> Kung Fu was originally designed for killing people on the battlefield. Only recently had it become about "self defence" and "inner peace".



Well that entirely depends on which side of history you think is correct. If you believe that Chinese Martial Arts originated with the Shaolin monks, then their primary function was as a form of exercise and self-defence for the monks to allow them to meditate for long periods of time. If however you believe that Chinese Martial Arts originated from the Yellow Emperor then they were primarily used on the battlefield. 

That said, regardless of how and why Chinese Martial Arts originated, along the way various leaders of China have sought to stop the fighting aspect of Chinese Martial Arts, either by stopping people from practicing them entirely, or by stipulating that they can only be done for artistic and cultural purposes, NOT for fighting. With such barriers in place, it's no wonder that Chinese Martial Arts aren't trained for fighting anymore.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> why does it matter if it was designed to fight people in a war or designed to fight people in an alley way. To be effective at one it must be equal effective at the other


Well, no, that's not so at all.

The environment "on the battlefield" tends to be dramatically different from that of most places in civilian life, including an alley.  Particularly when we are talking about historic, pre-gunpowder/pre-modern martial applications, a ton of things which dramatically impact strategy, tactics, technique, and equipment are, frankly, different.

Let's look at a few.

Armor is a big one.  All the way up to modern warfare, personal armor on the battlefield is the norm.  From the Hoplite breastplate, to the Roman lorica, from the medieval chain hauberk, to the modern PASGT vests, personal armor is the norm when "in combat."  However, their extra bulk, discomfort, and expense makes them fairly uncommon for Joe Sixpack citizen's daily use.  This difference alone immediately necessitates changes in technique, targeting, and weaponry.  These changes are very clearly expressed in the martial art.

Next is the weapons.  Frankly the weapons most frequently used on "the battlefield" are optimized for group combat.  Historically speaking, these tend to be pole-weapons and distance weapons such as long spears, long axes, javelins, bows, slings, etc.  While a 12 foot spear makes a whole lot of sense for a warrior in formation it is pretty cumbersome for the civilian.  Even in the cases where swords are used, it turns out that the swords used on "the battlefield" are frequently not the same as what works best in civilian self defense.  The Odachi and Nodachi are certainly different from a Katana, and there are parallels in every culture.  The Smallsword, which was primarily a civilian sword sure looks (and is used) different from a Longsword or basket-hilted broadsword.  In a Chinese context does anyone expect a fairly light Jian to be the most efficient design for group combat?  It's called the "scholar's sword" for a reason, right?

I mentioned "group combat" and "formations" a couple of times so let's talk about friends.  In a "battlefield" fight, formations are life and death.  If the formation breaks or the line collapses into general scrimmage, the army dies.  For millennia military texts have been written on what formations to use, how to ensure their integrity, and how to break them.  In a civilian self defense context, seeing an opponent as part of a highly organized and disciplined formation is pretty rare.

Lighting is another element which tends to be different.  While not as hard and fast a rule as armor, most battles tend to be fought in the daylight.  Generals and armies like to be able to see the fight.  Conversely, civilian attackers like to use the dark of night to pick out unsuspecting and unprepared victims.

That is another difference; opponent as opposed to victim.  The mind set of people on either side of a conflict is different between a military engagement and a civilian self defense encounter.

That said, I think we do agree on one part of what I believe you are trying to say.  Humans are still humans.  They only break in so many ways.  A dislocated shoulder is effective whether "on the battlefield" or "in a dark alley." But there are, indeed, a lot of differences as well.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 8, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> In my experience though he hits the nail on the head when the line is crossed to physical (non firearm related violence) on the street involving not a bar fight etc but an unprovoked attack.  They swing for the bleachers or move in FAST for a take down. etc.


My point exactly; see how diverse it is?  You listed 3 different types of encounters/attacks already and I bet you can think of a dozen more variations.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 8, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Well, no, that's not so at all.
> 
> The environment "on the battlefield" tends to be dramatically different from that of most places in civilian life, including an alley.  Particularly when we are talking about historic, pre-gunpowder/pre-modern martial applications, a ton of things which dramatically impact strategy, tactics, technique, and equipment are, frankly, different.
> 
> ...



I 100% agree, and you can see this very clearly when you do Chinese traditional weapons forms. I know forms for the Jian (straight sword), Dao (broadsword) and Qiang (spear), and all 3 reflect their original purpose. The Jian, as noted above, is a civilian's weapon, and the form assumes that you are fighting alone, and has you spinning and attacking in all directions. If you tried doing this while in a formation you will do more damage to your allies than your opponent. On the other hand, the Dao and Qiang forms have you moving forwards and backwards in a straight line, generally attacking in the same direction with each strike. This is how you would fight when in a battle formation, but if you tried to do such linear and predictable movements in a 1v1 civilian dual and you'd get cut to pieces. 

Each form tells you a lot about the intended historical use for the weapon which is why I'm glad they are still practiced today, despite not being needed to fight with.


----------



## jobo (Jun 8, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Well, no, that's not so at all.
> 
> The environment "on the battlefield" tends to be dramatically different from that of most places in civilian life, including an alley.  Particularly when we are talking about historic, pre-gunpowder/pre-modern martial applications, a ton of things which dramatically impact strategy, tactics, technique, and equipment are, frankly, different.
> 
> ...


so if your fighting another peasants with no armour and no spear in an alley way in day light how is it different ?


----------



## lklawson (Jun 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> so if your fighting another peasants with no armour and no spear in an alley way in day light how is it different ?


It's probably not a battle and you're probably not in an Army.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo (Jun 8, 2017)

lklawson said:


> It's probably not a battle and you're probably not in an Army.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


they had battles in towns in the old days, in day light, and only the gentry had amour .


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> why does it matter if it was designed to fight people in a war or designed to fight people in an alley way. To be effective at one it must be equal effective at the other


In war you'll need to have techniques and weapons that work against multiple attackers and armor. In civilian context,  you are more likely to be fighting 1 vs 1.  It makes a big difference in the mindset and strategy that a person will train with.  In war they would want to kill as quickly as possible.  You don't want to be in a situation where you are wrestling on the ground for 3 minutes trying to put someone in an arm bar.  Factor in the weight of armor and you'll want to make sure that killing is as efficient as possible.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> they had battles in towns in the old days, in day light,


Sometimes, yes.



> and only the gentry had amour .


Not if they could help it.  Having armor in a battle is always an advantage and every soldier would typically try their best to get ahold of it.  Usually it was part of the standard kit.  If the soldier wasn't issued and couldn't afford metal armor, they'd use whatever the next best alternative would be.  Sometimes that is what's called "quilted" armor and sometimes it might be cuir bouilli.

Are you suggesting that I believe there are never exceptions?  Of course there are.  Exceptions prove the rule.  "Battle field" martial arts evolve to match the norm, not the exception.

That said, the exceptions are usually much more interesting than the rule.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo (Jun 8, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> In war you'll need to have techniques and weapons that work against multiple attackers and armor. In civilian context,  you are more likely to be fighting 1 vs 1.  It makes a big difference in the mindset and strategy that a person will train with.  In war they would want to kill as quickly as possible.  You don't want to be in a situation where you are wrestling on the ground for 3 minutes trying to put someone in an arm bar.  Factor in the weight of armor and you'll want to make sure that killing is as efficient as possible.


people keep banging on about armor, peasants didn't have armor . Armor was mind blowing expensive, peasant's turn up in their working clothes with some rice flails or other farm impliment


----------



## lklawson (Jun 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> people keep banging on about armor, peasants didn't have armor . Armor was mind blowing expensive, peasant's turn up in their working clothes with some rice flails or other farm impliment


Not all armor is metal.  Sheesh, if you weren't issued armor you got the best that you could afford.

Heck, pacific islanders, with no access to metal, made armor out of coconut fiber.







A lot of times Light Cavalry didn't wear much (or any) armor either.  Are you suggesting that a Cav charge is civilian self defense?

Look, you know that military based "battle field" martial arts need to be different because the needs are different from civilian "self defense" martial arts.


----------



## jobo (Jun 8, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Not all armor is metal.  Sheesh, if you weren't issued armor you got the best that you could afford.
> 
> Heck, pacific islanders, with no access to metal, made armor out of coconut fiber.
> 
> ...


that doesn't really fit any reasonable defintion of armour. Anyway how many coconuts are there s china?

turning up in thick clothing is a bit pointless, if the others have swards'. And they argument was they couldn't move properly because of the weight. That wouldn't apply to wearing coconut matting, though I'm pretty sure the itching wouldn't help

its not me that said amour was the difference between civil and army, that was someone else


----------



## jobo (Jun 8, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Sometimes, yes.
> 
> Not if they could help it.  Having armor in a battle is always an advantage and every soldier would typically try their best to get ahold of it.  Usually it was part of the standard kit.  If the soldier wasn't issued and couldn't afford metal armor, they'd use whatever the next best alternative would be.  Sometimes that is what's called "quilted" armor and sometimes it might be cuir bouilli.
> 
> ...


the norm was lots of people who couldn't afford armour or a sward, running around hitting each other with farm impliments


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 8, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Well that entirely depends on which side of history you think is correct. If you believe that Chinese Martial Arts originated with the Shaolin monks, then their primary function was as a form of exercise and self-defence for the monks to allow them to meditate for long periods of time. If however you believe that Chinese Martial Arts originated from the Yellow Emperor then they were primarily used on the battlefield.
> 
> That said, regardless of how and why Chinese Martial Arts originated, along the way various leaders of China have sought to stop the fighting aspect of Chinese Martial Arts, either by stopping people from practicing them entirely, or by stipulating that they can only be done for artistic and cultural purposes, NOT for fighting. With such barriers in place, it's no wonder that Chinese Martial Arts aren't trained for fighting anymore.


The most recent example of the Chinese government repressing Martial Arts is their response to the Tai Chi vs MMA fight.  They quickly try to claim the definition and the purpose of Martial Arts.  Ironically while other TMA martial artist were more than eager to step up.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> they had battles in towns in the old days, in day light, and only the gentry had amour .



And it was typically only the gentry who fought duels using weapons. Your average peasant couldn't afford a sword of their own and would only be given one when they were fighting in the army.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 8, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> The most recent example of the Chinese government repressing Martial Arts is their response to the Tai Chi vs MMA fight.  They quickly try to claim the definition and the purpose of Martial Arts.  Ironically while other TMA martial artist were more than eager to step up.



Yes, although you can't blame them too much, since the Shaolin temple provides a large portion of the tourist trade in China and as such they want to preserve the mysticism associated with the Shaolin Monks as these legendary fighters and masters of Kung Fu, despite none of them actually fighting....


----------



## DanT (Jun 8, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> With such barriers in place, it's no wonder that Chinese Martial Arts aren't trained for fighting anymore.


I agree with everything except for this. There are still a few places that train it for combat. But they are rare.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> that doesn't really fit any reasonable defintion of armour.


Yes, actually, it does.  



> Anyway how many coconuts are there s china?


You're missing the point.



> turning up in thick clothing is a bit pointless, if the others have swards'. And they argument was they couldn't move properly because of the weight. That wouldn't apply to wearing coconut matting, though I'm pretty sure the itching wouldn't help


You are still missing the point.



> its not me that said amour was the difference between civil and army, that was someone else


That was me.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> the norm was lots of people who couldn't afford armour or a sward, running around hitting each other with farm impliments


Not in organized militarizes past the frigg'n stone age.  Armor was the norm, even if it was "just" a shield.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information about how armies were equipped but it's just not accurate.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 8, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> And it was typically only the gentry who fought duels using weapons. Your average peasant couldn't afford a sword of their own and would only be given one when they were fighting in the army.


Spears and pole-arms were cheaper.  Tend to work better in formation combat too.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> they had battles in towns in the old days, in day light, and only the gentry had amour .


Everyone had armor.  The quality of the armor is what varied. Why would you go to war without some type of armor regardless of how small the piece of am or is.  Amor could be as simple as an extra layer of clothing covering vital areas like the wrists.  From a military point of view, it's in your best interest to have a well equipped army.  Not everyone will have the best, but everyone will something.  There are historical records of soldiers creating their own armor; after all why wouldn't do what you could to increase your chances of survival?  This is no different what modern soldiers have done.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> people keep banging on about armor, peasants didn't have armor . Armor was mind blowing expensive, peasant's turn up in their working clothes with some rice flails or other farm impliment


The best armor was expensive. Front line infantry armor couldn't  afford to be expensive.  The goal was to provide as much armor  as possible.  After the battle is over the winner would take what they could off the dead to resupply the army.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 8, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Spears and pole-arms were cheaper.  Tend to work better in formation combat too.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Indeed, especially against cavalry. 



jobo said:


> that doesn't really fit any reasonable defintion of armour. Anyway how many coconuts are there s china?
> 
> turning up in thick clothing is a bit pointless, if the others have swards'. And they argument was they couldn't move properly because of the weight. That wouldn't apply to wearing coconut matting, though I'm pretty sure the itching wouldn't help
> 
> its not me that said amour was the difference between civil and army, that was someone else



Then what is your definition of "armour"? Does armour have to be metal for it to be armour?


----------



## jobo (Jun 8, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Indeed, especially against cavalry.
> 
> 
> 
> Then what is your definition of "armour"? Does armour have to be metal for it to be armour?


no, but it has by defintion to be able to protect you from what your likely to be hit with. So putting on a thick coat may be said to be amour if someone is throwing tennis ball at you. But not amour if your expecting someone to attack you with a pitch fork or even a pointy stick, wrapping yourself in coconut matting was only effective u till technology came up with making pointy sticks, about two million years ago,


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> So putting on a thick coat may be said to be amour if someone is throwing tennis ball at you.












To put it into context.  Other materials were uses as well such as bone, leather, and wood.  Anything that I can put in between my enemy's blade and my skin is going to be looked at as an option as long as it wasn't detrimental to my fighting ability.  While a "thick coat" may not protect against a stab, it would still offer some protection against a slice or a blunt impact, and some arrows, especially if the cloth was woven.  Even if it doesn't stop the arrow from piercing your flesh, it will prevent it from being a deep flesh wound.  Ancient Armor made from paper.






Many years ago as a teenager, I was swinging on a rope next to a fence that looked like this.  I had a thick coat one that had a pull up collar.  I had the coat on because it the rope, which was thin, was cutting me.  On one swing the rope snapped and the back of my neck landed on the the fence.  Had I not had the coat with the high collar on then fence would have ripped the back of my neck and probably would have either killed me.  My neck literally landed on the fence and I slid off the fence and landed on my feet.  I didn't realize how blessed I was until I got in to the house.  The fence put a 6 inch rip into the collar and ripped through all of the fabric except the wool on the inside.    I've ripped my hand open as a kid before so I know from experience how fences like this will tear through flesh.    Blades are like that when it comes to slashing.   I'm better off with a thick piece of fabric between me and my skin.   Don't think so.  Take a towel, fold it twice and wrap it around a wood post.  Then take a knife and try to slash the wood through the towel.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 8, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Yes, although you can't blame them too much, since the Shaolin temple provides a large portion of the tourist trade in China and as such they want to preserve the mysticism associated with the Shaolin Monks as these legendary fighters and masters of Kung Fu, despite none of them actually fighting....


Well yes I can.  I can blame them a whole lot.


----------



## jobo (Jun 8, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> To put it into context.  Other materials were uses as well such as bone, leather, and wood.  Anything that I can put in between my enemy's blade and my skin is going to be looked at as an option as long as it wasn't detrimental to my fighting ability.  While a "thick coat" may not protect against a stab, it would still offer some protection against a slice or a blunt impact, and some arrows, especially if the cloth was woven.  Even if it doesn't stop the arrow from piercing your flesh, it will prevent it from being a deep flesh wound.  Ancient Armor made from paper.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wear shoes to stop sharp stones sticking in my feet, nobody in their right mind would say I had armoured feet

this debate started, with someone saying they couldn't do kung fu on the battle field as they were wearing armour, now it turns out they had put an extra jumper on and thos wouldn't in anyway stop them kung fu fighting


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> I wear shoes to stop sharp stones sticking in my feet, nobody in their right mind would say I had armoured feet
> 
> this debate started, with someone saying they couldn't do kung fu on the battle field as they were wearing armour, now it turns out they had put an extra jumper on and thos wouldn't in anyway stop them kung fu fighting


armor is anything that helps to protect you against a weapon (and is usually worn on the body)


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 8, 2017)

DanT said:


> I agree with everything except for this. There are still a few places that train it for combat. But they are rare.



Exactly.  The reason it took me over a year to find my Sifu is because it took me that long to find one who taught what one would call "combative" Wing Chun.  Kali (which he also teaches) clearly is combative, it starts with weapons and even today is taught to the Filipino Recon Marines.  The Wing Chun that was harder to find BUT I lucked out and have a Sifu who still thinks like a cop and his Sifu teaches the DoJ and DoD combatives.  I actually count myself very lucky that I had such a Sifu so close.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 8, 2017)

lklawson said:


> My point exactly; see how diverse it is?  You listed 3 different types of encounters/attacks already and I bet you can think of a dozen more variations.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk




Well let me break it down...

when I think gun I am NOT think MA...I am thinking shoot first or run for cover.
when I say bar fight I think of the guys posturing and clearly sizing each other up before blows strike...

the above is not what the video speaks to.

when I think of street robberies or the sudden "I want to kick this person's butt in a surprise assault" I have experienced exactly what the video speaks of.  They over commit one way or the other.  I actually size up people when I am encountering them.  It eventually becomes easy to see who knows how to fight and who doesn't, who will follow the predictable path the video describes and who won't.  It actually doesn't take formal training tbh an experienced brawler with natural talent may have limited techniques BUT being experienced they will use those techniques in an unpredictable manner.  They learned the hard way what happens when you over commit etc.

That last bit is perhaps what he misses, one doesn't need formal teaching to be unpredictable, experience can fill that gap.  

The main reason I liked this video was that it stopped with the "in the ring there are rules" stuff.  That has some influence but really the rules are a small part.  The main part is mind set and that only comes with experience and/or pressure testing and too many TMA schools lack the training that works on the "mind set" issue.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 9, 2017)

jobo said:


> this debate started, with someone saying they couldn't do kung fu on the battle field as they were wearing armour,


No.  It didn't.  It apparently started when I stated that not all "kung fu" was originally designed for "battlefield" use (a point which the person I was replying to stipulated).  To use your parlance, I said that "kung fu" which was specifically designed for or evolved in the context of "battlefield" would look/be different from "kung fu" which was designed for/evolved in a civilian self defense context.  I further contended that some systems of "kung fu" were most certainly intended for "battlefield" and that some were most certainly designed for civilian self defense.  Your entrance to the debate was that they would not look or be different at all because "To be effective at one it must be equal effective at the other" which simply is not so because the context of "battlefield" is different for the context of civilian self defense.



> now it turns out they had put an extra jumper on and thos wouldn't in anyway stop them kung fu fighting


No.  It turns out that either you misunderstood what was written or have lost sight of it during your argument.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 9, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Well let me break it down...
> 
> when I think gun I am NOT think MA...I am thinking shoot first or run for cover.


Your preferred response *IS* martial arts.  There is an attack (opponent presents or reasonably threatens with gun).  There is a trained and programmed response (move - find cover/concealment, present own gun, fire).  This is most certainly martial art.



> when I say bar fight I think of the guys posturing and clearly sizing each other up before blows strike...
> 
> the above is not what the video speaks to.
> 
> ...


In general, I agree with most of what you wrote here.  Nothing worth arguing about, for sure.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 9, 2017)

lklawson said:


> And you would be wrong.
> 
> Well, partly wrong and partly right.  *SOME* forms of martial arts of Chinese origin may have been designed as "battlefield" <ahem>.  It is also clear that some other forms were designed for other purposes.  Civilian self defense is quite common among those purposes.
> 
> ...



I tend to look at battlefield martial arts (what I call warrior arts) through the following lens.  If the martial art has...
1. a decent variety of weapons (example WC, which I love studying, would fail this)

and/or

2. not a focus on striking but either a balance or more grappling (again the WC I study would fail here).  

Why number 1?  That's the obvious one.  On the battlefield you want a force multiplier.

why #2?  Because in the warfare two things are a concern.  First you will likely only be going unarmed because you lost your weapon(s).  If your opponent is still armed you want the grappling skills so you can get control of that weapon.  Second if your opponent is armored, many strikes can potentially do more damage to you than the opponent.  You need to attack the joints, either during or after you have disarmed the opponent.  Know kicks can do that to the knees of course BUT do you want to kick inside the guard of a weapon wielding subject?  Hence the grappling comes in.

I see this almost every night in training actually when we hop between TWC and Kali.  Kali is a "warrior art", even if it is tribal vs Nation/Imperial warrior.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 9, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Your preferred response *IS* martial arts.  There is an attack (opponent presents or reasonably threatens with gun).  There is a trained and programmed response (move - find cover/concealment, present own gun, fire).  This is most certainly martial art.
> 
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I never thought of it that way.  Good point.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 9, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I tend to look at battlefield martial arts (what I call warrior arts) through the following lens.  If the martial art has...
> 1. a decent variety of weapons (example WC, which I love studying, would fail this)



Why do you need to learn a variety of weapons in order to partake on the battlefield? The native tribes of Africa like the Suri still train for "battlefield" Martial Arts with spears, and that's all they use. Does the fact that they only use 1 weapon mean they aren't practicing a Martial Art?


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 9, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Why do you need to learn a variety of weapons in order to partake on the battlefield? The native tribes of Africa like the Suri still train for "battlefield" Martial Arts with spears, and that's all they use. Does the fact that they only use 1 weapon mean they aren't practicing a Martial Art?



A few reasons.  

First you have to understand that often it is conceptual.  As an example, in Kali while we train with sticks we use the stick like you would a sword (training to use a sword vs a stick/baton are different).  Hence the saying "we can fight with sticks but we train to fight with swords."

Second you never want to go into battle with only one weapon.  What happens if you lose the one weapon you walked in with?  Are you going to carry multiple weapons of the same type?  So if you are a Landsknecht, as an example, you would know how to use the pike but also the kaltzbalger.  You may know how to use the sword but also have a knife on your belt etc.

Also FYI, the video you posted is actually part of the culture BUT it is not indicative of Ethiopian warrior training.  The suri stick fighting is essentially a mating ritual of that tribe.  It's purpose is to impress women and the winner wins the right to propose to the woman of his choice, who can chose to accept or reject.  A great many competitions practiced by warriors in tribal cultures are more about either exercise, rites of passage, or other social constructs as noted above and not actually the martial art of their culture.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 9, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Why do you need to learn a variety of weapons in order to partake on the battlefield? The native tribes of Africa like the Suri still train for "battlefield" Martial Arts with spears, and that's all they use. Does the fact that they only use 1 weapon mean they aren't practicing a Martial Art?


Many of the tribes of Africa fought with multiple weapons. Each weapon had a benefit that could be taken advantage of.  Do you actually think that they only used spears to hunt?  If it can kill an animal then it can kill a man.  So at the minimum, we are talking spears, knives, bows and arrows, clubs, and swords.   Lets say you are in a war and you throw your spear at your enemy or it breaks.  Now what? Are you going to go fight with your hands or are you going to reach for your secondary weapon that you carry on you?

African Weapons

Pay attention to the types of weapons they have.  The club is called a Rungu


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Many of the tribes of Africa fought with multiple weapons. Each weapon had a benefit that could be taken advantage of.  Do you actually think that they only used spears to hunt?  If it can kill an animal then it can kill a man.  So at the minimum, we are talking spears, knives, bows and arrows, clubs, and swords.   Lets say you are in a war and you throw your spear at your enemy or it breaks.  Now what? Are you going to go fight with your hands or are you going to reach for your secondary weapon that you carry on you?
> 
> African Weapons
> 
> Pay attention to the types of weapons they have.  The club is called a Rungu



You're right, it was a silly statement on my part.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> That's just it.  The "Traditional Method" is all about combat. Everything from the conditioning exercises to the strength building exercises, and the weapons, say as much. It screams combat.  It think the problem is that China cracked down on many schools who taught martial arts as it truly should be and in their place changed the perception of martial arts as being all about being honorable and not about fighting.   In my eyes, the training isn't about fighting, but the use of it in a Self-Defense aspect is.
> 
> It's like shooting a gun.  People shoot at targets, it's not about killing, it's about hitting the target.  But that changes when the target becomes an animal or a violent attacker in the context of self-defense.


I think the problem is that the traditional methods evolved over time to work together in the context they were used in. They used equipment available, and built upon the common body strengths of the time. We are not performing the same everyday activities as those people did, and we know more about conditioning. So, some of the traditional methods need updating (and often aren't), while others are misunderstood - even given supernatural significance by those who don't understand the culture they formed in.

There's nothing wrong with traditional methods, properly used, when they fit the objective. But they are often used without sufficient understanding. Let's take that bag-flipping-kick drill you use. In 100 years, that could turn into people kicking the wrong kind of bag (say, a full Muay Thai bag), or using the wrong kick, or trying to use it for the wrong purpose. It would then be probably useless, harmful, or just confusing to the practitioners. Yet, well understood, it makes sense and is helpful.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think the problem is that the traditional methods evolved over time to work together in the context they were used in.


I agree.  Context is everything.  The one thing that has always made me scratch my head with TMAs is that many of the techniques that are demonstrated are based on "old methods of attacks"  There's nothing wrong with the technique except that it hasn't been shown in the context of how  one can expect to get attacked these days.  For myself personally it takes a long time to figure out how to translate an old technique to deal with a newer? or modern? style attack.


----------



## jobo (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree.  Context is everything.  The one thing that has always made me scratch my head with TMAs is that many of the techniques that are demonstrated are based on "old methods of attacks"  There's nothing wrong with the technique except that it hasn't been shown in the context of how  one can expect to get attacked these days.  For myself personally it takes a long time to figure out how to translate an old technique to deal with a newer? or modern? style attack.


apart from the invention of guns, how have the way we can expect to be attacked changed  over time?


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> apart from the invention of guns, how have the way we can expect to be attacked changed  over time?



A few things.  I think to an extent the context can simply be the surrounding arts at the time.  As an example there are techniques in Muay Thai that are not in the various Kung Fu styles so one would have to adapt what is in those styles to counter the technique.


----------



## jobo (Jun 10, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> A few things.  I think to an extent the context can simply be the surrounding arts at the time.  As an example there are techniques in Muay Thai that are not in the various Kung Fu styles so one would have to adapt what is in those styles to counter the technique.


MT is a very simple system of all out assault using feet knee elbows and punches. All or those are common place in kung fu. It's not the techniques' that are greatly different its the intensity of the delivery and the fitness of the fighters

but anyway he seemed to be talking in a far more general sense just there is no defence against a MT low kick. But then anybody can do one of them with a bit of practise


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> apart from the invention of guns, how have the way we can expect to be attacked changed  over time?


In reference to TMAs, the way people attack each other has changed considerably. We only need to look at the TMA demos to get an insight on the type of traditional attacks that are being done.  In all those demos you won't see the attacker move anything like the way we see people attack in the street fight videos shown in youtube. 

When was the last time any of us have seen a TMA demonstration on how to deal with someone who bobs and weaves like this kid?





Or how to fight someone like this?


----------



## jobo (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> In reference to TMAs, the way people attack each other has changed considerably. We only need to look at the TMA demos to get an insight on the type of traditional attacks that are being done.  In all those demos you won't see the attacker move anything like the way we see people attack in the street fight videos shown in youtube.
> 
> When was the last time any of us have seen a TMA demonstration on how to deal with someone who bobs and weaves like this kid?
> 
> ...


so bobbing and weaving are a new invention ? Moving about to make it difficult for people to hit you is as old as fighting


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> so bobbing and weaving are a new invention ? Moving about to make it difficult for people to hit you is as old as fighting


I never said that bobbing and weaving are new inventions, but they are done differently now than how they are done during the early days of bare knuckle fighting. I have yet to see a TMA train bobbing and weaving.  I've seen many teach how to take angles and step off center but never the bobbing and weaving.

You'll see TMA use the parry as they step of center and that's as close to a weave as you'll get.


----------



## jobo (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I never said that bobbing and weaving are new inventions, but they are done differently now than how they are done during the early days of bare knuckle fighting. I have yet to see a TMA train bobbing and weaving.  I've seen many teach how to take angles and step off center but never the bobbing and weaving.
> 
> You'll see TMA use the parry as they step of center and that's as close to a weave as you'll get.



wouldn't you just kick them in the leg, if their head was going up and down. Boxing is a very effective techneque unless people are allowed to kick you, in which case. Hands up guards' and bobbing heads are not a lot of use.
are you claiming that kicks are not included in tma?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> MT is a very simple system of all out assault using feet knee elbows and punches. All or those are common place in kung fu. It's not the techniques' that are greatly different its the intensity of the delivery and the fitness of the fighters
> 
> but anyway he seemed to be talking in a far more general sense just there is no defence against a MT low kick. But then anybody can do one of them with a bit of practise


Muay Thai is more than just feet, knees, and punches.  They are good with sensing when their opponent is off balance and how to take advantage of it.  From the outside it looks like it's just the basics, but there's more to it than that.  I allowed my brother to put me into a Muay Thai clinch because I wanted to experience it.  When he locked me, he moved me so I would be off balance and as I tried to regain my balance, he kneed me.  The entire 30 seconds was nothing but me trying to retain my balance and getting kneed.  The only real option that I saw was to first stop him from taking my balance and to move him off balance when I thought he was going to attack.  It almost reminded me of a Muay Thai push hands but with knees.


----------



## jobo (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Muay Thai is more than just feet, knees, and punches.  They are good with sensing when their opponent is off balance and how to take advantage of it.  From the outside it looks like it's just the basics, but there's more to it than that.  I allowed my brother to put me into a Muay Thai clinch because I wanted to experience it.  When he locked me, he moved me so I would be off balance and as I tried to regain my balance, he kneed me.  The entire 30 seconds was nothing but me trying to retain my balance and getting kneed.  The only real option that I saw was to first stop him from taking my balance and to move him off balance when I thought he was going to attack.  It almost reminded me of a Muay Thai push hands but with knees.


ok its knees elbows punches kicks and a bit of balance, what it isn't is elaborate as many of the tma, its just the basics of hitting. All these basics are contained in kung fu


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> wouldn't you just kick them in the leg, if their head was going up and down. Boxing is a very effective techneque unless people are allowed to kick you, in which case. Hands up guards' and bobbing heads are not a lot of use.
> are you claiming that kicks are not included in tma?


 If the guy is bobbing and weaving then he may be too close to land an effective kick.  Here's an example.





When I watch Muay Thai fighters fight boxers, they go take the bobbing and weaving game out of the equation by attacking the legs first.  This way the boxer doesn't get a chance to use that skill.  If they are too close then the bobbing and weaving is going to cause some serious damage.  It's a dangerous skill set but I don't know any TMA schools specifically train against it.  I would personally like to train against it in my school but that would require a boxer with that skill set to come train with us. Unfortunately I don't know of anyone; yet.


----------



## jobo (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> If the guy is bobbing and weaving then he may be too close to land an effective kick.  Here's an example.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if he is to close to kick you knee him, when we were discussing horse stance, you we're all against moving like a boxer whilst doing gung fu, no it seems your saying its unplayable ? Pick a position


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> ok its knees elbows punches kicks and a bit of balance, what it isn't is elaborate as many of the tma, its just the basics of hitting. All these basics are contained in kung fu


  The basics aren't as basics as people think.  It may be basic as being the easiest technique to learn  in a system. I may be a core technique in the system, but actually deploying the technique is far from basic.  You have many TMA practitioners that can do basic martial arts stuff and still fail at deploying it in a sparring match.  There's 2 main levels of learning martial arts.  1st level is doing the technique. 2nd level is deploying the technique. 

Grappling systems seem to be the only martial arts where #1 and #2 are the same thing.  In the striking systems, like kung fu, you'll see tons of people reach the 1st level and be total garbage at the 2nd level.


----------



## jobo (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> The basics aren't as basics as people think.  It may be basic as being the easiest technique to learn  in a system. I may be a core technique in the system, but actually deploying the technique is far from basic.  You have many TMA practitioners that can do basic martial arts stuff and still fail at deploying it in a sparring match.  There's 2 main levels of learning martial arts.  1st level is doing the technique. 2nd level is deploying the technique.
> 
> Grappling systems seem to be the only martial arts where #1 and #2 are the same thing.  In the striking systems, like kung fu, you'll see tons of people reach the 1st level and be total garbage at the 2nd level.


I said that, its basic kung fu skills, applied very well, with intensity and a considerable amount of fitness. Kung fu experts can't take them on, as they have spent to much time in horse stance and nowhere near enough with a skipping rope, a heavy bag or a decent oppoinent who is hitting back


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> if he is to close to kick you knee him, when we were discussing horse stance, you we're all against moving like a boxer whilst doing gung fu, no it seems your saying its unplayable ? Pick a position


 I'm against moving like a boxer while doing kung fu because if you are fighting against someone who knows what they are doing and understands how boxers move, then you are get kicked and kneed.  If the person who is doing kung fu isn't good at using kung fu then by all means move like a boxer.  This is not an either or situation.  It's always in the context of who you are facing and the skill level of the fighters.

here's an example that shows both points.  It highlights the the Muay Thai fighter keeping his distance,  It highlights the boxers ability to move, and the boxer moved so well that the Muay Thai fighter decided to pick him up.  The movement as a boxer worked well against the Muay Thai fighters punches but put him in a bad position which made it easy for the Muay Thai fighter to take him to the ground.





boxing vs tkd


----------



## jobo (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm against moving like a boxer while doing kung fu because if you are fighting against someone who knows what they are doing and understands how boxers move, then you are get kicked and kneed.  If the person who is doing kung fu isn't good at using kung fu then by all means move like a boxer.  This is not an either or situation.  It's always in the context of who you are facing and the skill level of the fighters.
> 
> here's an example that shows both points.  It highlights the the Muay Thai fighter keeping his distance,  It highlights the boxers ability to move, and the boxer moved so well that the Muay Thai fighter decided to pick him up.  The movement as a boxer worked well against the Muay Thai fighters punches but put him in a bad position which made it easy for the Muay Thai fighter to take him to the ground.
> 
> ...


we are talking about kung fu, v a fighter that moves like a boxer,ie doesnt stand still in a horse stance, kick boxer are boxer who kick and so move like a boxer by defintion.

your point was if a person is fast moving a kung fu guy can't hit him. The answer is plainly obvious, move your self


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> its basic kung fu skills, applied very well, with intensity and a considerable amount of fitness


Most people have trouble applying the TMA basics the attacks that they get in the school aren't representative of how people actually attack each other.  So from a training point they are already behind.  I can train against a long fist punch or an overhead hammer fist strike all day long  for many years and still never be able to translate that defensive technique in a modern context. Unless I fight a guy like this, then my many hours of training against such an attack isn't going to be helpful.  




Props for this guy. He would have "scored major points" had he been able to pull it off.   But unfortunately he didn't know how to deploy it and as a result he got punched in his face.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> MT is a very simple system of all out assault using feet knee elbows and punches. All or those are common place in kung fu. It's not the techniques' that are greatly different its the intensity of the delivery and the fitness of the fighters
> 
> but anyway he seemed to be talking in a far more general sense just there is no defence against a MT low kick. But then anybody can do one of them with a bit of practise



I think @JowGaWolf covered it but it goes beyond bobbing and weaving to tactics as well.  As an example, something that is kinda both a technique and a tactic, bursting in Krav Maga.  Striking without cocking an arm, just essentially charging?  It's little things but they are important.


----------



## jobo (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Most people have trouble applying the TMA basics the attacks that they get in the school aren't representative of how people actually attack each other.  So from a training point they are already behind.  I can train against a long fist punch or an overhead hammer fist strike all day long  for many years and still never be able to translate that defensive technique in a modern context. Unless I fight a guy like this, then my many hours of training against such an attack isn't going to be helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


???????????????????????????
you point was kung fu cant hold up against "modern attacks. I asked what modern attacks were and you said boxing type movements.
the reason they can't cope with a mobile oppoinent, is because they ate so un mobile themselves . There is nothing at all wrong with tcma other than an obsession with stable footwork
at the moment you seem to be arguing both points of view in alternative posts


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> we are talking about kung fu, v a fighter that moves like a boxer,ie doesnt stand still in a horse stance,


I have never had a discussion like that.  I'm the kung fu guy that's always saying that it's possible to move fast while in a horse stance.  You confuse me with someone else.



jobo said:


> your point was if a person is fast moving a kung fu guy can't hit him. The answer is plainly obvious, move your self


My point is that boxers are great evasive fighters who can slip a punch and counter, and just because a person knows kung fu, doesn't make that boxing skill any less dangerous.  I've shown 2 videos of a boxer winning against a martial artist and a boxer losing against a martial artists.  Like I said it's not an either or discussion.


----------



## jobo (Jun 10, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I think @JowGaWolf covered it but it goes beyond bobbing and weaving to tactics as well.  As an example, something that is kinda both a technique and a tactic, bursting in Krav Maga.  Striking without cocking an arm, just essentially charging?  It's little things but they are important.


so is charging a modern attack, did people not charge in the days when tmas were new?


----------



## jobo (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I have never had a discussion like that.  I'm the kung fu guy that's always saying that it's possible to move fast while in a horse stance.  You confuse me with someone else.
> 
> 
> My point is that boxers are great evasive fighters who can slip a punch and counter, and just because a person knows kung fu, doesn't make that boxing skill any less dangerous.  I've shown 2 videos of a boxer winning against a martial artist and a boxer losing against a martial artists.  Like I said it's not an either or discussion.


you cant move fast, ie travel across the ground whilst in a horse stance, any speed you can achieve will be slower than someone on straight legs. ??? A boxer is a martial arts as well


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> you point was kung fu cant hold up against "modern attacks. I asked what modern attacks were and you said boxing type movements.


 Show me 1 Traditional Martial Art school that trains against the movements and techniques of boxing.  Hung Gar, Choy Li Fut, Wing Chun, take your pick and not Sanda.  Show me one Karate school that trains to fight against boxing type movements and techniques of boxing.   The closest I've seen to this would be. Master Wong




Check out the schools in your area and see if you can find a TMA that trains against boxing movements and techniques.


----------



## jobo (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Show me 1 Traditional Martial Art school that trains against the movements and techniques of boxing.  Hung Gar, Choy Li Fut, Wing Chun, take your pick and not Sanda.  Show me one Karate school that trains to fight against boxing type movements and techniques of boxing.   The closest I've seen to this would be. Master Wong
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well the one i attend does, but the question would be WHY are you not training to fight a mobile and fast oppoinent .

mobile and fast opponents' are not new and must have been around in the " old days"


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> well the one i attend does, but the question would be WHY are you not training to fight a mobile and fast oppoinent .
> 
> mobile and fast opponents' are not new and must have been around in the " old days"


 I said show me, don't tell me.


----------



## jobo (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I said show me, don't tell me.


if you want to see you need to come on Wednesday, other that yoil have to take my word

but why are you not training to fight fast and mobile people


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> The basics aren't as basics as people think.  It may be basic as being the easiest technique to learn  in a system. I may be a core technique in the system, but actually deploying the technique is far from basic.  You have many TMA practitioners that can do basic martial arts stuff and still fail at deploying it in a sparring match.  There's 2 main levels of learning martial arts.  1st level is doing the technique. 2nd level is deploying the technique.
> 
> Grappling systems seem to be the only martial arts where #1 and #2 are the same thing.  In the striking systems, like kung fu, you'll see tons of people reach the 1st level and be total garbage at the 2nd level.


I'd argue there's still that distinction in grappling. If someone has never grappled with resistance, they'll never pull it off against someone who is actually resisting, unless they get lucky (or the other guy is really bad).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Show me 1 Traditional Martial Art school that trains against the movements and techniques of boxing.  Hung Gar, Choy Li Fut, Wing Chun, take your pick and not Sanda.  Show me one Karate school that trains to fight against boxing type movements and techniques of boxing.   The closest I've seen to this would be. Master Wong
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Many of the schools I've visited do. The problem is the one you referenced earlier: how good are they at replicating what they're training against? If they're doing a decent job of replicating it (or someone comes in who is skilled in it), they'll learn to defend against it. If they replicate it poorly, they'll learn to defend against something that's not the same.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> If the guy is bobbing and weaving then he may be too close to land an effective kick.  Here's an example.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The issue you have is they are moving in to a strike. Very similar to dodging to your left. 

So you dodge to your left. Come close to that right hand and pow. Right in the kisser.

Now say I throw a right hand and you dodge to the right. But you go too far. Then you have moved your head towards my right foot. You eat a shin in your face.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'd argue there's still that distinction in grappling. If someone has never grappled with resistance, they'll never pull it off against someone who is actually resisting, unless they get lucky (or the other guy is really bad).



Grappling is almost always done with resistance. Which is jow's distinction there.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Show me 1 Traditional Martial Art school that trains against the movements and techniques of boxing.  Hung Gar, Choy Li Fut, Wing Chun, take your pick and not Sanda.  Show me one Karate school that trains to fight against boxing type movements and techniques of boxing.   The closest I've seen to this would be. Master Wong
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If your tma is part of a MMA club and you turn up to sparring like you should. You fight actual boxers kick boxers and grapplers.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Grappling is almost always done with resistance. Which is jow's distinction there.


Oddly, not necessarily. In TMA, grappling is often learned first from a fairly static position. I've seen schools that added dynamic movement, but failed to add resistance. It's an intermediate point that has value, but doesn't get all the way to learning to grapple against someone who's actually trying to stop you from your goal.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> we are talking about kung fu, v a fighter that moves like a boxer,ie doesnt stand still in a horse stance, kick boxer are boxer who kick and so move like a boxer by defintion.
> 
> your point was if a person is fast moving a kung fu guy can't hit him. The answer is plainly obvious, move your self



No. They don't move randomly. It is not even necessarily a speed game. There are places you can go inside an exchange that will make you more or less likely to be hit.


----------



## jobo (Jun 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> No. They don't move randomly. It is not even necessarily a speed game. There are places you can go inside an exchange that will make you more or less likely to be hit.


ot wasn't me, rather our kung fu man that said kung fu cant cope with a fast and mobile attacker. I think it can, but only if you are not stood in a stupid horse stance whilst your oppoinent attacks and retreats at will.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> ot wasn't me, rather our kung fu man that said kung fu cant cope with a fast and mobile attacker. I think it can, but only if you are not stood in a stupid horse stance whilst your oppoinent attacks and retreats at will.


MMA is pretty horse stancey.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> If your tma is part of a MMA club and you turn up to sparring like you should. You fight actual boxers kick boxers and grapplers.


I could only dream of something like that.  To have every sparring day to be Jow Ga vs. (insert style) instead of Jow Ga vs Jow Ga which is the norm.  Maybe later this year I can work something out with an MMA gym.  



jobo said:


> rather our kung fu man that said kung fu cant cope with a fast and mobile attacker.


I've never said that. You can take a look at Jow Ga forms and know right off the back that I would never say that.  What I will say is that most TMA student's don't train against mobility.  That's why when someone jumps on them with a bunch of punches they freeze and extend their arms like Frankenstein's monster, instead of move.  We have all seen evidence of this when a TMA practitioner meets up with someone who moves a lot and at different heights.  Not all TMAs schools are like that, but there are a lot that are.

Here's an example.
Both of these guys are TMA practitioners, but only one trains to deal with mobility.  The other one just freezes because he's not used to dealing with that type of movement. We have all seen similar freezing from TMA practitioners who fight against MMA, BJJ, or any other system that uses more movement than what is found or trained against in TMA schools.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> if you want to see you need to come on Wednesday, other that yoil have to take my word
> 
> but why are you not training to fight fast and mobile people


I can only train against the skills that people in my school have.  They would need to be faster and more mobile than me.  There is one guy that's faster and more mobile than me, but he works off a pattern so once I know how he likes to move, then it neutralizes his ability to take advantage of being fast and mobile.  The only way I can train against fast and mobile to spar against someone outside of the school.  Maybe this year the school will get lucky and we'll have some fast and very mobile people to join.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> That's just it.  The "Traditional Method" is all about combat. Everything from the conditioning exercises to the strength building exercises, and the weapons, say as much. It screams combat.  It think the problem is that China cracked down on many schools who taught martial arts as it truly should be and in their place changed the perception of martial arts as being all about being honorable and not about fighting.   In my eyes, the training isn't about fighting, but the use of it in a Self-Defense aspect is.
> 
> It's like shooting a gun.  People shoot at targets, it's not about killing, it's about hitting the target.  But that changes when the target becomes an animal or a violent attacker in the context of self-defense.



What ruined Chinese martial arts was the communist party in China. The government pretty much banned martial arts and only permitted performance arts to be taught. The ban as far as I know was barely lifted only in the 80's or something. 

So you had all that time of Martial Arts being blacklisted and masters vanishing.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I could only dream of something like that.  To have every sparring day to be Jow Ga vs. (insert style) instead of Jow Ga vs Jow Ga which is the norm.  Maybe later this year I can work something out with an MMA gym.
> 
> I've never said that. You can take a look at Jow Ga forms and know right off the back that I would never say that.  What I will say is that most TMA student's don't train against mobility.  That's why when someone jumps on them with a bunch of punches they freeze and extend their arms like Frankenstein's monster, instead of move.  We have all seen evidence of this when a TMA practitioner meets up with someone who moves a lot and at different heights.  Not all TMAs schools are like that, but there are a lot that are.
> 
> ...



Damn he makes it look easy.


----------



## jobo (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I can only train against the skills that people in my school have.  They would need to be faster and more mobile than me.  There is one guy that's faster and more mobile than me, but he works off a pattern so once I know how he likes to move, then it neutralizes his ability to take advantage of being fast and mobile.  The only way I can train against fast and mobile to spar against someone outside of the school.  Maybe this year the school will get lucky and we'll have some fast and very mobile people to join.


yes but they can train against your mobility.

if people stood on horse stance only fight people stood in horse stance its hardly surprising that a mobile attacker gives difficulty

my point is that this static fighting style isn't traditional. It's something that has crept in. When we do various Chinese styles there is lots of movement.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> my point is that this static fighting style isn't traditional. It's something that has crept in. When we do various Chinese styles there is lots of movement.


In striking art, there is a training that you

- stay in your fighting stance. No matter how hard that your opponent's attack may be, you are not suppose to move your feet. This can test your blocking skill to the extreme.

- keep moving around. No matter how fast that your opponent's attack may be, you are not suppose to let him to touch any part of your body. This can test your dodging skill to the extreme.

I like both training very much.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I could only dream of something like that. To have every sparring day to be Jow Ga vs. (insert style) instead of Jow Ga vs Jow Ga which is the norm. Maybe later this year I can work something out with an MMA gym.



MMA gyms always need sparring partners. You need the right sort of gym. You don't want to get bashed.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> MMA gyms always need sparring partners. You need the right sort of gym. You don't want to get bashed.


Yeah. I'm not looking to be bashed at least when I'm trying to learn kung fu techniques, which is a high mistake process.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 11, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Show me 1 Traditional Martial Art school that trains against the movements and techniques of boxing.  Hung Gar, Choy Li Fut, Wing Chun, take your pick and not Sanda.  Show me one Karate school that trains to fight against boxing type movements and techniques of boxing.   The closest I've seen to this would be. Master Wong
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What happens if you bob and weave a bit too predictably in a fight that allows leg attacks.

WATCH: Dan Hooker knocks out Ross Pearson with devastating knee


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> so is charging a modern attack, did people not charge in the days when tmas were new?



Go to YouTube and enter "Krav Maga bursting".  It's not charging as one would expect.  Typically when one charges you are expecting a grapple/takedown.  Bursting is about dealing with an attack by striking.  Basically you surge to the opponent, thrusting one arm at the limb attacking, the other one raised to strike the opponents core/center.  The power of the strike and block/deflection isn't from punching but from the legs.  The limbs are essentially rams being powered by your legs in a forward "burst".

In my experience that is uncommon in other MA.  Now there are ways to counter it BUT if you are training exclusively in a single martial art and don't "Branch out" when someone "bursts you" you are most likely going to react as if a takedown is imminent, right before one forearm is deflecting your strike and you are feeling a strike to the abdomen or sternum at the same instant.


----------



## jobo (Jun 12, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Go to YouTube and enter "Krav Maga bursting".  It's not charging as one would expect.  Typically when one charges you are expecting a grapple/takedown.  Bursting is about dealing with an attack by striking.  Basically you surge to the opponent, thrusting one arm at the limb attacking, the other one raised to strike the opponents core/center.  The power of the strike and block/deflection isn't from punching but from the legs.  The limbs are essentially rams being powered by your legs in a forward "burst".
> 
> In my experience that is uncommon in other MA.  Now there are ways to counter it BUT if you are training exclusively in a single martial art and don't "Branch out" when someone "bursts you" you are most likely going to react as if a takedown is imminent, right before one forearm is deflecting your strike and you are feeling a strike to the abdomen or sternum at the same instant.


the discussion was,,, is this bursting a new techneque, km is very nearly as old a karate, so the answer would seem to be no its not new


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> the discussion was,,, is this bursting a new techneque, km is very nearly as old a karate, so the answer would seem to be no its not new



Apologies, this will be a little long because I want to try and make a number of points.

First...What? KM as old as karate?!?!?!?!  KM basically started being developed in the 1930's by Lichtenfeld as a synergy of western boxing, wrestling and street fighting.  It was basically refined into a something resembling what we call KM in the 50's and 60's when he was the chief Instructor for the IDF (as an example he didn't formally include Judo elements until the 1960s.)  Then in the 1970's his chief student, forget the guys name, included Aikido elements.  In the 80's they introduced Muay Thai and then BJJ techniques.  Now I do not know from whence the idea of bursting came from, but it, in my experience is fairly unique.  So basically the KM we know today is as old as the 1980's.  

If you look at Okinawan Karate we are talking centuries old.  "Japanese" Karate early 1900's.  Now Kyokushin is roughly from the infant KM period (1950's) but Kyokushin is simply a "next step" in a far older art, unlike KM that synergizes from a host of source; arts you would not think are compatible (Muay Thai and Aikido), and instinctive bio-mechanics (bursting).

You also seem to make an error in think "new" means "specific technique invented in 2017."  New here is about context not a calendar.
___________________________________________________________________________

Next, remember TMA's tend to focus on trained techniques, that take a fair amount of time to simply become competent in a real fight let alone master.  The whole point of KM is that it is supposed to make a competent fighter when dealing with the time constraints of Military/Security Forces training.  So the combination of seemly disparate, but basic, techniques and some "techniques" that are based on instinctive biomechanics does indeed make it "new" context wise.  All the ideas in the art existed before but lets look at metals as an analogy.  We had copper and tin, someone came along and combined them and we had Bronze.  It was "new" but based on a combination of things we already knew about.

None of the above is to say that TMA's are bad.  The problem is complicated because you seem

1.  All MA's (even MMA, KM and other modern styles that try to combine the best of all) technique wise have inherent strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes it's inherent in the art, sometimes in the practitioner, sometimes a combo of all

2. TMAs as they are trained all too often have an additional weakness.  The train WC vs WC, Jow Ga vs Jow Ga, BJJ vs BJJ, Muay Thai vs Muay Thai etc.  This creates an additional inherent weakness.

-What does the WC guy do if the BJJ guy gets him on the ground? 
-What does the BJJ guy do if the Jow Ga guy doesn't let him grapple? 
-What does the Muay Thai guy do if the WC guy gets in close so kicks don't work and traps so he can't clinch and thus can't knee effectively? 
-What does the Jow Ga guy do if the Muay Thai guy gets him in the clinch and the knees start flying?

Now some of us are lucky and go to a school where multiple arts are trained and thus can "test" ourselves against them.  Some of us seek it out on our own @JowGaWolf did it with his brother with Muay Thai, I spar with my TKD brother-in-law and a co-worker who is a BJJ guy.  However I have never experienced being in a Muay Thai clinch and getting kneed the way @JowGaWolf has.  It would be new to me.  I would have to learn if WC, Kali or Aikido has the better solution.  I suspect "giving in" and going to the ground and using Kali or Aikido would be the best option but I don't know and it would be a "new" learning experience.  Luckily, at best, I tend to deal with talented "street fighters" and so after 19 years of dealing with that, not much new comes along, but if it did, all my training and experience would have to adapt quickly.


----------



## jobo (Jun 13, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Apologies, this will be a little long because I want to try and make a number of points.
> 
> First...What? KM as old as karate?!?!?!?!  KM basically started being developed in the 1930's by Lichtenfeld as a synergy of western boxing, wrestling and street fighting.  It was basically refined into a something resembling what we call KM in the 50's and 60's when he was the chief Instructor for the IDF (as an example he didn't formally include Judo elements until the 1960s.)  Then in the 1970's his chief student, forget the guys name, included Aikido elements.  In the 80's they introduced Muay Thai and then BJJ techniques.  Now I do not know from whence the idea of bursting came from, but it, in my experience is fairly unique.  So basically the KM we know today is as old as the 1980's.
> 
> ...


it is indeed a very long post, but unfortunately its a very long post based on a false premise.
karate was developed from older arts in the 1900s. KM was developed from older arts in 1900s. Therefore they are both twentieth century. If you are going to claim karate is much older based on the,arts it was developed from,then you have to do the same for KM. you cant just make up a qualification and only apply to one of the arts. Western boxing wrestling and street fighting can be traced back many centuries. Quite possibly longer, but certainly as long a cma


----------



## lklawson (Jun 13, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Basically you surge to the opponent, thrusting one arm at the limb attacking, the other one raised to strike the opponents core/center.  The power of the strike and block/deflection isn't from punching but from the legs.  The limbs are essentially rams being powered by your legs in a forward "burst".


So driving a linear punch by strongly stepping forward and using the weight of your body to "fall linearly" into the strike?

If that's it, then it's pretty common.  It was the standard linear punch, called the Lead Off, Left Lead, or, when from rear, Right Straight or Rear Straight.  I can document it in bare knuckle boxing going back to the early 19th Century or late 18th, but Jack Dempsey described it best in his book Championship Fighting.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo (Jun 13, 2017)

lklawson said:


> So driving a linear punch by strongly stepping forward and using the weight of your body to "fall linearly" into the strike?
> 
> If that's it, then it's pretty common.  It was the standard linear punch, called the Lead Off, Left Lead, or, when from rear, Right Straight or Rear Straight.  I can document it in bare knuckle boxing going back to the early 19th Century or late 18th, but Jack Dempsey described it best in his book Championship Fighting.
> 
> ...


thanks for that, I was trying to explain,such to the kung fu man, who insisted such a punch did not exist. I link him to it, if he hadn't put me on ignore


----------



## lklawson (Jun 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> thanks for that, I was trying to explain,such to the kung fu man, who insisted such a punch did not exist. I link him to it, if he hadn't put me on ignore


A few examples:



james sullivan by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community




Walker page43 by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community





ArtAndPractice pp16 left lead by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community




Walker page52 by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2017)

lklawson said:


> So driving a linear punch by strongly stepping forward and using the weight of your body to "fall linearly" into the strike?
> 
> If that's it, then it's pretty common.  It was the standard linear punch, called the Lead Off, Left Lead, or, when from rear, Right Straight or Rear Straight.  I can document it in bare knuckle boxing going back to the early 19th Century or late 18th, but Jack Dempsey described it best in his book Championship Fighting.
> 
> ...








Here is a video that explains it, for clarification.  Essentially you don't cock the arm.  Your arm is where it is, you will extend it of course but it starts from where ever it is, unlike the standard linear punch that comes from a "ready position" as I understand it.  It's very similar imo to how the WC straight punch works.

Bursting however is a technique primarily used for a surprise attack when you aren't ready but still obviously have to react.  In such a surprise scenario most arts most arts, to my knowledge, teach some variation "zone, evade, deflect" while perhaps striking to get into proper position, vs straight up jumping into the teeth of the attack from whatever position you found yourself into start.  

That to me makes it "new". Since the original core of KM is Western Boxing however and the founder was learning to fight in the early 1900's I would have little doubt that he adapted the mechanics of bare knuckle boxing to addressing surprise attacks in a street fighting context.  Refining older techniques and/or adapting them to a different context however is still making something "new" and different.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2017)

lklawson said:


> A few examples:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually this lets me come up with another analogy for what I am trying to describe in terms of evolution of an art.  Lets say I have a time machine, I go back and scoop John L. Sullivan and put him in the ring with Manny Pacquiao.  Now they are both "boxers" but something tells me that John L Sullivan would see some "new" things that he would have to rapidly adapt to.

In terms of TMAs there is a reason they are called that, they try hard to stick to the Traditions of the art and are thus more static and so when they run into something not in their "tool box" the practitioner is dealing with something "new" and has to adapt to it just as John L Sullivan would have to adapt to Manny Pacquiao.


----------



## jobo (Jun 13, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Actually this lets me come up with another analogy for what I am trying to describe in terms of evolution of an art.  Lets say I have a time machine, I go back and scoop John L. Sullivan and put him in the ring with Manny Pacquiao.  Now they are both "boxers" but something tells me that John L Sullivan would see some "new" things that he would have to rapidly adapt to.
> 
> In terms of TMAs there is a reason they are called that, they try hard to stick to the Traditions of the art and are thus more static and so when they run into something not in their "tool box" the practitioner is dealing with something "new" and has to adapt to it just as John L Sullivan would have to adapt to Manny Pacquiao.


yes but manny would have some new \old things to cope with as well, but the fundaments' of punch and move are the same.

the problem with some tmas is not that they are stuck in time, its that they have evolved to be less effective than they were previously, devolution if you like


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes but manny would have some new \old things to cope with as well, but the fundaments' of punch and move are the same.
> 
> the problem with some tmas is not that they are stuck in time, its that they have evolved to be less effective than they were previously, devolution if you like



Yes and no on your first point.  Many modern punching techniques, and the targets, are different between today and then.  Bare knuckle fighting used the "pistol grip" punch because biomechanically it reduces the chances of a "boxer's fracture."  There were also a lot more in the way of body shots to further reduce this.  This kind of punching would have been VERY rare if not unheard of (@lklawson can correct me if I am wrong however.) because this became possible thanks to gloves.







As for TMAs The techniques haven't devolved, the problem lies in the training.  In China, before they outlawed it in the early 20th century due to the number of deaths, there was the Lei Tai where one art fought against other arts.  This way you were exposed to different methods of fighting.  Over time, while participating in such challenges little would be "new".  This also existed in the Hong Kong "roof top" culture.

This lack of exposure to other styles to minimize running into something that is subjectively "new" to the practitioner is what went away.  Then you have adaptions of techniques, such as adapting the "falling punch" from a "ready position" to "bursting" at your opponent from whatever position you happen to be in that creates more "new" that is, again, not being tested against due to the contemporary training methods.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 13, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Here is a video that explains it, for clarification.


This looks exactly like the Straight Rear with a (high) left parry (sometimes a Parry a Round blow at your ear).  I can track this to Daniel Mendoza, mid-to-late 18th Century, just prior to the U.S. war of independence.

I love seeing the similarities in these sort of things.  Kinda a hobby of mine.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 13, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Actually this lets me come up with another analogy for what I am trying to describe in terms of evolution of an art.  Lets say I have a time machine, I go back and scoop John L. Sullivan and put him in the ring with Manny Pacquiao.  Now they are both "boxers" but something tells me that John L Sullivan would see some "new" things that he would have to rapidly adapt to.


Generally the rule set each work under is fairly important.  Throw Sullivan in with Manny under modern gloved rules and I'd bet money on Manny every day of the week and twice on Sunday.  Throw Manny back under LPR's bare knuckle rules with Sullivan and I'm changing my better faster than a politician forgets his promises.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 13, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Yes and no on your first point.  Many modern punching techniques, and the targets, are different between today and then.  Bare knuckle fighting used the "pistol grip" punch because biomechanically it reduces the chances of a "boxer's fracture."  There were also a lot more in the way of body shots to further reduce this.  This kind of punching would have been VERY rare if not unheard of (@lklawson can correct me if I am wrong however.) because this became possible thanks to gloves.


Pretty rare, yeah.  "Swinging" blows or "Round Blows," tended to turn the hand over so the top of the fist (thumb side) was down or sort-of-down-ish.




Doran's Science of Self Defense by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

"Swings" were generally considered less effective, more telegraphed, easier to parry, and the mark of a less sophisticated boxer.  Driscol positively rants about it in his book.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo (Jun 13, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Yes and no on your first point.  Many modern punching techniques, and the targets, are different between today and then.  Bare knuckle fighting used the "pistol grip" punch because biomechanically it reduces the chances of a "boxer's fracture."  There were also a lot more in the way of body shots to further reduce this.  This kind of punching would have been VERY rare if not unheard of (@lklawson can correct me if I am wrong however.) because this became possible thanks to gloves.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well no for two reasons, one,, that manau of the Chinese styles are fast moving and powerful, its only some which are very poor.
when I did la ga fung fu in the 80s we did a lot of horse stance, to build legs and character, but no one ever suggested you would fight  that way . It was fast good body mechanics'
and very effective
two, if I can borrow your time machine and pop back to the ming dynasty's,
a young man is showing the emperor his new style, to teach the royal body guard's
emperor,,, right, so all you do it stand their like a crab
young man. , yes it makes it hard for them to hit me or knock me over,
emperor, what if they run past you and attack me,
young man, I hadn't thought of that

emperor, get out


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> well no for two reasons, one,, that manau of the Chinese styles are fast moving and powerful, its only some which are very poor.
> when I did la ga fung fu in the 80s we did a lot of horse stance, to build legs and character, but no one ever suggested you would fight  that way . It was fast good body mechanics'
> and very effective
> two, if I can borrow your time machine and pop back to the ming dynasty's,
> ...



I am sorry but I fail to see how anything that you said above is relevant to the topic at hand.


----------



## jobo (Jun 13, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I am sorry but I fail to see how anything that you said above is relevant to the topic at hand.


the topic at hand is why are tcma so poor,
answer they arnt only some of them are
they can't always have been so poor as nobody would have offered  them in the first place


----------



## lklawson (Jun 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> the topic at hand is why are tcma so poor,


I don't recall anyone writing that.  Could you help me out and link to it, please?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> the topic at hand is why are tcma so poor,
> answer they arnt only some of them are
> they can't always have been so poor as nobody would have offered  them in the first place




Really?  I am the OP and have only studied TMAs in depth (currently studying Wing Chun and Filipino Kali).  I thought this thread was simply talking about the strengths and weaknesses of different fighting styles and the potential causes of the weaknesses.  I didn't see anyone say that TMA's were poor.


----------



## jobo (Jun 13, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Really?  I am the OP and have only studied TMAs in depth (currently studying Wing Chun and Filipino Kali).  I thought this thread was simply talking about the strengths and weaknesses of different fighting styles and the potential causes of the weaknesses.  I didn't see anyone say that TMA's were poor.


it was a summation, most arts have,strengh and weakness, others just have weaknesses, that equals them being poor


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> it was a summation, most arts have,strengh and weakness, others just have weaknesses, that equals them being poor



First I think you are reading too much into.  2nd I do not believe that many, if any, TMAs have only weaknesses.  Some have bigger weaknesses than others though even that gets complicated.  As an example.  Some TMA's are impractical in the modern context because of how much training it takes.  There are certain strikes in certain animal forms of Kung Fu that require body hardening techniques to be practiced as an example.  That can be practical if you are a Monk and part of your monastic life is training, or if you are wealthy and thus have a lot of free time (and the cultural derived drive) to do such training but in the modern world it's impractical.  This doesn't mean the art is all weakness.

If TMAs were all weakness they never would have lasted into the modern world.  There is no better example of the effects of Darwinism than combat.


----------



## jobo (Jun 13, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> First I think you are reading too much into.  2nd I do not believe that many, if any, TMAs have only weaknesses.  Some have bigger weaknesses than others though even that gets complicated.  As an example.  Some TMA's are impractical in the modern context because of how much training it takes.  There are certain strikes in certain animal forms of Kung Fu that require body hardening techniques to be practiced as an example.  That can be practical if you are a Monk and part of your monastic life is training, or if you are wealthy and thus have a lot of free time (and the cultural derived drive) to do such training but in the modern world it's impractical.  This doesn't mean the art is all weakness.
> 
> If TMAs were all weakness they never would have lasted into the modern world.  There is no better example of the effects of Darwinism than combat.


that was my point before, they arnt all weak, and the weak ones wernt always weak.

. If your going to assess their weakness, then you need tp compare them against other martial arts. Then you have to find some elements of win chun for example, that are stronger than another art. Then when you conclude there arnt many or even any, then you have to conclude its poor/ weak or what ever .

nb I'd count a style that requires a deformed hand as having a major weakness, its a bit more than not being convenient or practical


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> that was my point before, they arnt all weak, and the weak ones wernt always weak.
> 
> . If your going to assess their weakness, then you need tp compare them against other martial arts. Then you have to find some elements of win chun for example, that are stronger than another art. Then when you conclude there arnt many or even any, then you have to conclude its poor/ weak or what ever .
> 
> nb I'd count a style that requires a deformed hand as having a major weakness, its a bit more than not being convenient or practical



It doesn't actually require a deformed hand IF you do it properly.  By properly I mean kinda like how one wants to smoke a brisket, "low and slow."  In short you first make sure you have the proper striking technique down, then build up and use Jow, lots of it, before and after.  You start by using beans or rice, then move to a medium like gravel or rocks, inside canvas bags. You might start doing just 10 reps per each part of the hand daily, working your way up to maybe 50, for a 100 day foundation program and then have the "real" training that starts after that lasts for 2 years.  The idea is to slowly work your way up, if you get injured stop, heal, then continue.  You don't get to the point where you are doing what this video shows until you are fairly well along






In doing it slowly you minimize the types of injuries or lack of uniform healing that would cause deformed hands.  What makes it impractical is simply the following question.  How many people who are working full time and raising families are not only going to train in their Martial Art but also set up the proper training equipment in their own home and strike a bag filled with something 40-200 times a day, with each hand, for 100 days just to get to the point where you are then doing it 400 times a day for the next year so that you get the result without the injury.  That is the impracticality of it. 

Here is a decent book on the subject... 9781943155118: Fundamental Iron Skills: Tempering Body and Limbs with Ancient Methods - AbeBooks - Dale Dugas: 1943155119


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> that was my point before, they arnt all weak, and the weak ones wernt always weak.
> 
> . If your going to assess their weakness, then you need tp compare them against other martial arts. Then you have to find some elements of win chun for example, that are stronger than another art. Then when you conclude there arnt many or even any, then you have to conclude its poor/ weak or what ever .
> 
> nb I'd count a style that requires a deformed hand as having a major weakness, its a bit more than not being convenient or practical


A strength in an art doesn't have to be stronger than another art to be valid. Close standing grappling is a strength of NGA (as I know it). It is definitely not stronger than Judo in that area.


----------



## jobo (Jun 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> A strength in an art doesn't have to be stronger than another art to be valid. Close standing grappling is a strength of NGA (as I know it). It is definitely not stronger than Judo in that area.


its only a strengh if it effective,what are you going to compare it effectivness against if not judo?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> its only a strengh if it effective,what are you going to compare it effectivness against if not judo?


It can be effective, without being the best. In-close grappling is what Judo is mostly about. We have a wider range (striking, distance grappling, weapons), so it's unsurprising that Judo is stronger within their wheelhouse than us. 

If someone can bench 400 pounds, he is strong. Just because the next guy benches 550, that fact doesn't change.


----------



## jobo (Jun 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It can be effective, without being the best. In-close grappling is what Judo is mostly about. We have a wider range (striking, distance grappling, weapons), so it's unsurprising that Judo is stronger within their wheelhouse than us.
> 
> If someone can bench 400 pounds, he is strong. Just because the next guy benches 550, that fact doesn't change.


the question was, what you comparing its effectiveness with?


----------



## geezer (Jun 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> nb I'd count a style that requires a deformed hand as having a major weakness, its a bit more than not being convenient or practical



Sorry I lost you on this. Are you referencing "iron palm" training? ...in Wing Chun?  According to my old Chinese sifu (a student of Yip Man) iron palm is _not _a part of WC/VT although some have added it in.

Oh ...and to _Juany._ Don't put too much faith in mystical Chinese herbal remedies. _Jow_ may help a bit, same as other patent medicine liniments. But a lot of that stuff is superstitious, useless, even _harmful _crap. Heck, in China they still market powdered rhino horn and pay more for it than gold, ...also tiger penis, fruit-bat and a whole bunch of other endangered species. And look what happened to the emperor Qin Shi Huang. He probably died from the immortality elixirs containing cinnabar his physicians prescribed. OK, so that was over 2,200 years ago. Still, as with all pre-scientific and non-scientific medical theories, there's some good, some indifferent, and a lot of rubbish ....and no agreement on which is which.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> its only a strengh if it effective,what are you going to compare it effectivness against if not judo?



Because having a "strength" doesn't by definition mean "superior".  As an example @gpseymour said Close standing grappling was A strength of NGA.  If that was ALL NGA did then yes it would be an issue in terms of a comparison to Judo BUT NGA also has a stronger striking component than Judo.  As has been pointed out already comparison between arts is complicated.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2017)

geezer said:


> Sorry I lost you on this. Are you referencing "iron palm" training? ...in Wing Chun?  According to my old Chinese sifu (a student of Yip Man) iron palm is _not _a part of WC/VT although some have added it in.
> 
> Oh ...and to _Juany._ Don't put too much faith in mystical Chinese herbal remedies. _Jow_ may help a bit, same as other patent medicine liniments. But a lot of that stuff is superstitious, useless, even _harmful _crap. Heck, in China they still market powdered rhino horn and pay more for it than gold, ...also tiger penis, fruit-bat and a whole bunch of other endangered species. And look what happened to the emperor Qin Shi Huang. He probably died from the immortality elixirs containing cinnabar his physicians prescribed. OK, so that was over 2,200 years ago. Still, as with all pre-scientific and non-scientific medical theories, there's some good, some indifferent, and a lot of rubbish ....and no agreement on which is which.



I am just basing my experience with Jow off of one I use regularly... Lau Family Jow.  It is a very effective topical analgesic and, in my experience helps minimize bruising.  It's probably only a handful of the multitude of herbs in there that does the work, but work it does.  I refer to it as "aspercreme on steroids" because it does this in the same way aspercreme works, without feeling "hot or cold".  The first time I used it, and got sold, was one night at class as it's what my Sifu uses.  During knife sparring on the Kali side a thrust got into the gap of my gloves and nailed me between the index and middle finger.  It hurt like hell and my hand swelled there almost like I had a boxers fracture.  I put the Jow on it and the pain was greatly reduced and while I had the swelling I had little to no bruising, which surprised me as we were using the rather thick Sharkee Training knives.


----------



## jobo (Jun 13, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Because having a "strength" doesn't by definition mean "superior".  As an example @gpseymour said Close standing grappling was A strength of NGA.  If that was ALL NGA did then yes it would be an issue in terms of a comparison to Judo BUT NGA also has a stronger striking component than Judo.  As has been pointed out already comparison between arts is complicated.


 if your stating that something is a strengh, then you must be measuring that someway.
its a simple question


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> if your stating that something is a strengh, then you must be measuring that someway.
> its a simple question


You measure it holistically against the art itself (what is a primary focus of training) and against a MULTITUDE of arts not simply one that is seen as preeminent in a particular field .


----------



## jobo (Jun 13, 2017)

geezer said:


> Sorry I lost you on this. Are you referencing "iron palm" training? ...in Wing Chun?  According to my old Chinese sifu (a student of Yip Man) iron palm is _not _a
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jobo (Jun 13, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> You measure it holistically against the art itself  .


how,do you measure it against the art its self????


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> how,do you measure it against the art its self????



I put the manner in parantheses.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> the question was, what you comparing its effectiveness with?


Effectiveness is not comparative. Something doesn't have to be "more effective" to be effective.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> if your stating that something is a strengh, then you must be measuring that someway.
> its a simple question


Measuring isn't the same as comparing.


----------



## jobo (Jun 14, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Effectiveness is not comparative. Something doesn't have to be "more effective" to be effective.


well yes and no, if you are going to make a blanket statement that something is,effective, its then incumbent on you to to state effective against who? As soon as you do so,( which you have,so far refused to do) then you are drawing a,comparison .
so is your grappling effective against a 10 stone drunks with no strengh balance or co ordination. ? Is it effective against a co operating oppoinent, i
is it effective against a skilled striker who will knock you over before you ever get hold of their arm,is it effective against a weight lifted who has considerably more strength than you.
if it effective against a another grappling art like judo or bjj

so yes to state something,as effective you do need to make,a,comparison as to who it is effective,against

So again how have you measured ,by comparison or otherwise the effectiveness of your grappling


----------



## lklawson (Jun 14, 2017)

jobo said:


> well yes and no, if you are going to make a blanket statement that something is,effective, its then incumbent on you to to state effective against who? As soon as you do so,( which you have,so far refused to do) then you are drawing a,comparison .
> so is your grappling effective against a 10 stone drunks with no strengh balance or co ordination. ? Is it effective against a co operating oppoinent, i
> is it effective against a skilled striker who will knock you over before you ever get hold of their arm,is it effective against a weight lifted who has considerably more strength than you.
> if it effective against a another grappling art like judo or bjj
> ...


I kinda follow a self defense/personal combat philosophy which starts with most likely and leads eventually to least likely.  First be efficacious with the *most likely* scenario or opponent.  Worry about #2 after you've first nailed down #1.

In your examples, is the most likely opponent going to be "a 10 stone drunks with no strengh balance or co ordination," an experienced Judoka or BJJ player, or something else?

I strongly suspect that "something else" and "drunk weakling" are far more likely than Judo/BJJ simply based on statistics of the percent of the population who practice any martial art at all*, never-mind Judo/BJJ in specific.

So, in your examples, "effective" seems likely to be applicable to the most likely, even if not necessarily "effective" when applied to the least likely.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


*Surveys usually put this at about 1/2 of 1% of the U.S. population have trained in a martial art at least once during the year.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2017)

jobo said:


> well yes and no, if you are going to make a blanket statement that something is,effective, its then incumbent on you to to state effective against who? As soon as you do so,( which you have,so far refused to do) then you are drawing a,comparison .
> so is your grappling effective against a 10 stone drunks with no strengh balance or co ordination. ? Is it effective against a co operating oppoinent, i
> is it effective against a skilled striker who will knock you over before you ever get hold of their arm,is it effective against a weight lifted who has considerably more strength than you.
> if it effective against a another grappling art like judo or bjj
> ...


That's not nearly the same as comparing it to Judo. BJJ is effective against Judo. Its in-close standing grappling is probably not as strong as ours, and our ground game (a weakness in NGA, typically) is not in the same league as either one. Our striking will be better than either. All three are effective, and none are better in all areas.


----------



## jobo (Jun 14, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's not nearly the same as comparing it to Judo. BJJ is effective against Judo. Its in-close standing grappling is probably not as strong as ours, and our ground game (a weakness in NGA, typically) is not in the same league as either one. Our striking will be better than either. All three are effective, and none are better in all areas.


its not a hard question, against who is your grappling effective


----------



## jobo (Jun 14, 2017)

lklawson said:


> I kinda follow a self defense/personal combat philosophy which starts with most likely and leads eventually to least likely.  First be efficacious with the *most likely* scenario or opponent.  Worry about #2 after you've first nailed down #1.
> 
> In your examples, is the most likely opponent going to be "a 10 stone drunks with no strengh balance or co ordination," an experienced Judoka or BJJ player, or something else?
> 
> ...


I was just giving him some possible comparisons

but yes, from a self defence point of view a judo black belt is an unlikely attacker. But fit strong people with reasonable balance and,co ordination are not at all unlikely. So if you believe you method to be effective, then you must have factored such people into your assessment

I must be unlucky, if I get road raged, its always someone who looks,like a middle weight boxer, its never weak skinny people or fat old people threatening to get out and punch me


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2017)

jobo said:


> its not a hard question, against who is your grappling effective


Against most people. Probably not against Tony Dismukes.


----------



## jobo (Jun 14, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Against most people. Probably not against Tony Dismukes.


this is like pulling teeth, and how have you measured or otherwise assessed that it effective against " most" people ?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2017)

jobo said:


> this is like pulling teeth, and how have you measured or otherwise assessed that it effective against " most" people ?


Sorry, not playing your game.


----------



## jobo (Jun 14, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Sorry, not playing your game.


its not a trick question, my style has stand up grappling arm bars wristlocks' etal. To show good faith il tell you how I assess its effectiveness .
it has good body mechanics, its not operating in the universe of fantasy moves. So it has the potential to be effective.
how ever if you know what's coming you can avoid it with out to much difficulty, I just refuse to let people grab hold of my arm so its near impossible for them to use it on me
so its fair to say that its effectiveness against a skilled fighter is quite low.
it also requires good speed and co ordinations to pull off, so if the opponent is faster than you are you may be struggling to pull it off.
then there is strengh, using it on a much stronger oppoinent may be problematic, if they just unfold their arm out of the wrist lock and you haven't the strengh to stop them. .

so in essance I consider it most effective against slow weak unco ordinated opponents', of reasonable use against averagely strong fast co ordonated oppoinent. And highly suspect against lightning fast, strong trained fighters


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2017)

jobo said:


> its not a trick question, my style has stand up grappling arm bars wristlocks' etal. To show good faith il tell you how I assess its effectiveness .
> it has good body mechanics, its not operating in the universe of fantasy moves. So it has the potential to be effective.
> how ever if you know what's coming you can avoid it with out to much difficulty, I just refuse to let people grab hold of my arm so its near impossible for them to use it on me
> so its fair to say that its effectiveness against a skilled fighter is quite low.
> ...


The problem is in deciding what you're actually measuring. My stand-up grappling isn't an average for NGA. I can grapple against skilled grapplers. I don't know how many in NGA can. Is that a problem in the art? I don't think so, since nothing I use is anything I'd consider outside the art.


----------



## jobo (Jun 14, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The problem is in deciding what you're actually measuring. My stand-up grappling isn't an average for NGA. I can grapple against skilled grapplers. I don't know how many in NGA can. Is that a problem in the art? I don't think so, since nothing I use is anything I'd consider outside the art.


well its up to you what you measure, I would suggest the style as you teach it, is best.
but if you have added in components to the art as instructed elsewhere in order to make it effective, then its fair to concluded that nga as instructed else where has a weakness


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2017)

jobo said:


> well its up to you what you measure, I would suggest the style as you teach it, is best.
> but if you have added in components to the art as instructed elsewhere in order to make it effective, then its fair to concluded that nga as instructed else where has a weakness


Oh, it's not "as instructed elsewhere", necessarily. I only know how a few instructors teach. At least one teaches all the same pieces I do. It's about personal competency. See, if I was asked to use NGA against an "average" Judoka, I have an advantage (because we have strikes prominently featured in our art). But if that Judoka is Tony Dismukes, well, his experience is more extensive than mine, and he has some significant striking experience, too. Then the advantage probably swings to Tony.

If the tools exist, their effectiveness is partly individual. I've seen NGA practitioners who would not be able to work their way into a basic leg sweep or hip throw against a competent grappler - but that's not a gap in the art.


----------



## jobo (Jun 14, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Oh, it's not "as instructed elsewhere", necessarily. I only know how a few instructors teach. At least one teaches all the same pieces I do. It's about personal competency. See, if I was asked to use NGA against an "average" Judoka, I have an advantage (because we have strikes prominently featured in our art). But if that Judoka is Tony Dismukes, well, his experience is more extensive than mine, and he has some significant striking experience, too. Then the advantage probably swings to Tony.
> 
> If the tools exist, their effectiveness is partly individual. I've seen NGA practitioners who would not be able to work their way into a basic leg sweep or hip throw against a competent grappler - but that's not a gap in the art.


of course its a weakness, if judo has better grappling than nga, then teach judo grappling instead. Why would you continue with a inferior product when there is a much better alternative instead
you position seems to be it does matter of the grappling is interior as we do punches as well. And that's like saying it doesn't matter if we have no back door, as the front door is really strong


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2017)

jobo said:


> of course its a weakness, if judo has better grappling than nga, then teach judo grappling instead. Why would you continue with a inferior product when there is a much better alternative instead
> you position seems to be it does matter of the grappling is interior as we do punches as well. And that's like saying it doesn't matter if we have no back door, as the front door is really strong


It's not the techniques - our in-close grappling actually comes from Judo (it's one of our source arts). It's focus. That's what they do, so it would be surprising if they weren't better at it. Judo doesn't have as much in distance grappling, and many schools don't teach any strikes. They do in-close work (mostly standing, some ground).


----------

