# Ninjutsu vs Bjj (NAGA rules)



## Hanzou

Black belt vs Blue belt. 185 vs 135.






Goes about the way you'd expect, despite the Ninja guy weighing 50lbs more.

Honestly if I was the Ninjutsu practitioner, I'd throw my black belt in the garbage and start over. Supposedly the Ninja guy wasn't happy about this being posted up and made up all sorts of excuses. Pathetic.


----------



## Headhunter

Grappler wins a grappling match.....shocking


----------



## Hanzou

Ninja boy thought he was a grappler too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Ninja boy thought he was a grappler too.


He is a grappler. Just not as good a grappler as he thought. He has no ground control - basically panicked movement (and wasted energy) once he got to the ground.


----------



## wab25

Wait a minute... before we talk about how bad an art is, based on the results of one competitor, in one match.... The video points out that that was the Championship Match. Either, this organization is so small, that every fight is a championship match or Ninja Boy did quite well to get himself into the Championship match. Presumably there were many competitors that did not make the Championship Match... who were they and what did they study? 


Hanzou said:


> Honestly if I was the Ninjutsu practitioner, I'd throw my black belt in the garbage and start over.


I guess everyone who did not make it to the Championship Match should start over... But thats not saying much about the winner then either.


----------



## Hanzou

wab25 said:


> Wait a minute... before we talk about how bad an art is, based on the results of one competitor, in one match.... The video points out that that was the Championship Match. Either, this organization is so small, that every fight is a championship match or Ninja Boy did quite well to get himself into the Championship match. Presumably there were many competitors that did not make the Championship Match... who were they and what did they study?
> I guess everyone who did not make it to the Championship Match should start over... But thats not saying much about the winner then either.



They talk about that in the video info:

"This was the championship match in the gi-division.  It was a 5 minute match / NAGA Rules.  Nik and his brother Jeremiah were the only competitors at this event that were trained in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu and Judo.  As far as we know, all of the other competitors were *black belts* in *Hapkido, Ninjitsu, and Japanese Ju-jutsu*.  Many of us have not seen a style-vs-style tournament since the early days of the UFC, so this was a very interesting event.  The gentleman Nikolas Collier faced in this video told us he won the championship match last year with a score of 35 to 0.  Even though there were various styles and backgrounds competing at this event, all the participants showed great courage and sportsmanship."

So yeah....


----------



## Buka

Yeah, but if it had been a Ninja tournament it would have been a different story. Especially had it been Sand Ninjas.


----------



## PiedmontChun

I liked the throw attempts. Given the size difference - kudos to that 135 lb guy for stringing attempts together and then pulling off that uchi mata at 1:08 when other attempts were not successful. It gave him a head start on being in a dominant position on the ground, which could have difficult to come back from for the other guy even if he was of similar skill, let alone someone who probably does not train ne waza regularly. Isn't Ninjitsu pretty broad style wise and not super focused on grappling?


----------



## pdg

PiedmontChun said:


> Isn't Ninjitsu pretty broad style wise and not super focused on grappling?



All that matters to Hanzou is that the bjj guy won.

Context doesn't come into it.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> All that matters to Hanzou is that the bjj guy won.
> 
> Context doesn't come into it.



You act like I forced the Ninja to enter a grappling tournament. It's not my fault the ninja was delusional.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> You act like I forced the Ninja to enter a grappling tournament. It's not my fault the ninja was delusional.



No, it's not your fault.

But it's absolutely no reason for



Hanzou said:


> Honestly if I was the Ninjutsu practitioner, I'd throw my black belt in the garbage and start over.



Because that's just plain being a tit.

Someone who wasn't trained purely in grappling lost a contest under grappling rules.

Hold the front page eh?

Let's see a pure grappler enter a boxing match under boxing rules.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> No, it's not your fault.
> 
> But it's absolutely no reason for
> 
> Because that's just plain being a tit.



I'm just being honest. The ninja got schooled on multiple levels by a 17 year old who had a 50lb weight disadvantage.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> I'm just being honest. The ninja got schooled on multiple levels by a 17 year old who had a 50lb weight disadvantage.



That's not "being honest" at all.

Also, read the rest of my message (I edited it).


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> That's not "being honest" at all.
> 
> Also, read the rest of my message (I edited it).



Again, its on the ninja if s/he thinks their skills allow them to compete in a grappling tournament.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Again, its on the ninja if s/he thinks their skills allow them to compete in a grappling tournament.



Still no reason to say their belt isn't worthy of the colour.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Still *no reason* to say their belt isn't worthy of the colour.



I gave you a few reasons.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> No, it's not your fault.
> 
> But it's absolutely no reason for
> 
> 
> 
> Because that's just plain being a tit.
> 
> Someone who wasn't trained purely in grappling lost a contest under grappling rules.
> 
> Hold the front page eh?
> 
> Let's see a pure grappler enter a boxing match under boxing rules.


Ali got so beat up by a wrestler he could hardly walk.


----------



## dunc

I think people get hung up on the belt thing too

I don’t know what level the “ninja” is or where he trains, but generally it takes 3-4 years to get a black belt in ninjutsu (probably 2 times a week) - which is equivalent to a BJJ blue belt in terms of mat time

And as others have said the curriculum is less focused on that format


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> I gave you a few reasons.




At it again lol...are you sure you do not spend your time on you tube looking for things just to prove your point of view lol? 

Oh and you may want to revise calling the person ninja boy as ummm there no such things as Ninja (or are you going to wiggle out of that one?) and for your info I think you will find the spelling is Ninjutsu )just pointing out as you like to be so correct and specific )


----------



## Hanzou

dunc said:


> I think people get hung up on the belt thing too
> 
> I don’t know what level the “ninja” is or where he trains, but generally it takes 3-4 years to get a black belt in ninjutsu (probably 2 times a week) - which is equivalent to a BJJ blue belt in terms of mat time



It actually takes less time to achieve a blue belt in Bjj. Usually only about 1-2 years of continuous training.



> And as others have said the curriculum is less focused on that format



As I said before, its on the ninja for entering a grappling tournament.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Oh and you may want to revise calling the person ninja boy as ummm there no such things as Ninja (or are you going to wiggle out of that one?) and for your info I think you will find the spelling is Ninjutsu )just pointing out as you like to be so correct and specific )



Nah, he's a *ninja boy*. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Nah, he's a *ninja boy*. Nothing more, nothing less.



So in you saying that does that give any one the right to call you what they think? 

Or is that just reserved for you to administer labels and tas as you see fit and deem appropriate?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> So in you saying that does that give any one the right to call you what they think?
> 
> Or is that just reserved for you to administer labels and tas as you see fit and deem appropriate?



LoL! I'm just having a little fun. Relax and stop being a damn weirdo all the time.


----------



## now disabled

now disabled said:


> So in you saying that does that give any one the right to call you what they think?
> 
> Or is that just reserved for you to administer labels and tas as you see fit and deem appropriate?




It ain't funny 

You are extremely good, in fact an expert at, picking faults with just about everything. 

Do you honestly get a thrill out of doing that? (I am being polite, face to face it be a heck of a lot more to the point), where is the motivation ? 
How would you feel if a person did that to you over and over again? Or is that some sort of think that sets your motor running? 

There are ways of saying things as opposed to basically slating everything except what you believe.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> It ain't funny



Yes it is.



> You are extremely good, in fact an expert at, picking faults with just about everything.



Thank you!



> Do you honestly get a thrill out of doing that?



Maybe.



> (I am being polite, face to face it be a heck of a lot more to the point)











> How would you feel if a person did that to you over and over again? Or is that some sort of think that sets your motor running?



Eh, I wouldn't care.



> There are ways of saying things as opposed to basically slating everything except what you believe.



By all means, I'd *love* to hear your viewpoint on this video.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> You act like I forced the Ninja to enter a grappling tournament. It's not my fault the ninja was delusional.


Given he'd won before, and beat everyone except that guy, not much of a delusion.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> LoL! I'm just having a little fun. Relax and stop being a damn weirdo all the time.




There you go again with the tags

Honestly do you or are you getting some sort of thrill out of this ?

You seem to like administering tags as do certain others but when they are said about you or some others it a different "game" 

We all know all too well that you have time for nothing but BJJ and that everything else does not work, you are aware we all know this? 

And you seem to put your stock in vids, even to the point that when I said yes used what I know for real and you and an other demanded vids lol and seemed to not quite understand that nope didn't have a go pro, they were not around, had a few other things on my mind at the time and most importantly the reason no vids is , Cause when folks like you get hold of things like that,  you'd be telling the world how you could either do it better or cause you had done some half arsed course you could teach them (or better still you'd watch you tube)


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Given he'd won before, and beat everyone except that guy, not much of a delusion.



Fair point. However, if the description is accurate and only Hapkido, JJJ, and Ninjutsu were participating, that makes sense.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> We all know all too well that you have time for nothing but BJJ and that everything else does not work, you are aware we all know this?



Nah, only people who aren't really paying attention to what I'm saying, since I never said that Bjj is the only MA that works.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> It actually takes less time to achieve a blue belt in Bjj. Usually only about 1-2 years of continuous training.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, its on the ninja for entering a grappling tournament.


That sounds like you’re saying “Don’t enter unless you know you will win.”


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Deleted. No humor circuit working.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> That sounds like you’re saying “Don’t enter unless you know you will win.”



More like, you should know what you're getting into when you sign on the dotted line.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou you are full of crap and ya know what that is why so many of your countrymen get a bad handle throughout the world .....you can give it but can't take it


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Hanzou you are full of crap and ya know what that is why so many of your countrymen get a bad handle throughout the world .....you can give it but can't take it



No way! When I travel to other places they love me! I get the red-carpet treatment wherever I go! I wear American flag shirts and everything and people think I'm awesome. Even in your neck of the woods.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> More like, you should know what you're getting into when you sign on the dotted line.



Knowing what he’s getting into might not change the outcome. If I entered a comp with BJJ folks I’d assume a bad ending if they get me to the ground and get a position. Wouldn’t stop me from entering. It’d be fun, either way.


----------



## now disabled

Now I want banned as seriously I just do not get how no one seems to see that if you give ya take and that not all the bloody world want s to be like the USA ......and have the attitude that it ok to dish it but jeez cannot take it and have to resort to tagging and always being critical yet god forbid anyone dares to dish it back 

Seriously It just awesome it really is awesome how you guys just do not get that is why a target is painted n your backs it cause of folks like Hanzou


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Knowing what he’s getting into might not change the outcome. If I entered a comp with BJJ folks I’d assume a bad ending if they get me to the ground and get a position. Wouldn’t stop me from entering. It’d be fun, either way.



Well its more of a counter-argument to the notion that him taking Ninjutsu is an excuse for why he lost to a kid with a 50lb weight disadvantage.


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> Now I want banned as seriously I just do not get how no one seems to see that if you give ya take and that not all the bloody world want s to be like the USA ......and have the attitude that it ok to dish it but jeez cannot take it and have to resort to tagging and always being critical yet god forbid anyone dares to dish it back
> 
> Seriously It just awesome it really is awesome how you guys just do not get that is why a target is painted n your backs it cause of folks like Hanzou


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Black belt vs Blue belt. 185 vs 135.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goes about the way you'd expect, despite the Ninja guy weighing 50lbs more.
> 
> Honestly if I was the Ninjutsu practitioner, I'd throw my black belt in the garbage and start over. Supposedly the Ninja guy wasn't happy about this being posted up and made up all sorts of excuses. Pathetic.


lol..  I'll take that challenge. Heck yeah I'll grapple against a 135lb guy lol.   Not even sure why you posted this one Hanzou.  You must be getting ready to stir the pot.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> No way! When I travel to other places they love me! I get the red-carpet treatment wherever I go! I wear American flag shirts and everything and people think I'm awesome. Even in your neck of the woods.



It's not you they like, it's your tourist money.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> It's not you they like, it's your tourist money.



I can live with that.


----------



## Martial D

Steve said:


> Ali got so beat up by a wrestler he could hardly walk.


You mean the fight where the dude lays on his back the whole fight and kicks Ali's legs?

Not sure we can call that wrestling...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Well its more of a counter-argument to the notion that him taking Ninjutsu is an excuse for why he lost to a kid with a 50lb weight disadvantage.


He didn’t do awfully until they got to the ground. I’m unsurprised by the last part. Most NGA folks would fare no better on the ground. Even with me putting more time into ground work, I don’t expect I’d match a BJJ brown belt on the ground. I’d look better (less panic) and be harder to take position on, but a strong purple belt should be able to destroy me on the ground, eventually.


----------



## Martial D

Hanzou said:


> Black belt vs Blue belt. 185 vs 135.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goes about the way you'd expect, despite the Ninja guy weighing 50lbs more.
> 
> Honestly if I was the Ninjutsu practitioner, I'd throw my black belt in the garbage and start over. Supposedly the Ninja guy wasn't happy about this being posted up and made up all sorts of excuses. Pathetic.


Fake.

If this were real the Ninja wouldn't have let himself be seen.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> lol..  I'll take that challenge. Heck yeah I'll grapple against a 135lb guy lol.   Not even sure why you posted this one Hanzou.  You must be getting ready to stir the pot.



I posted it to show the intricate beauty of a smaller person utilizing the power of Judo and Bjj to overcome a much larger opponent.


----------



## pdg

Martial D said:


> You mean the fight where the dude lays on his back the whole fight and kicks Ali's legs?
> 
> Not sure we can call that wrestling...



If that's the scenario it goes nowhere toward being a rebuke to my statement of:



pdg said:


> Let's see a pure grappler enter a boxing match under boxing rules.



Last I checked, laying on your back and kicking isn't within boxing rules.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> If I entered a comp with BJJ folks I’d assume a bad ending if they get me to the ground and get a position. Wouldn’t stop me from entering. It’d be fun, either way.


If that happens. Just get your arms around their chest and squeeze as hard as you can.  When you feel him exhale tighted up the squeeze and lock it.  Keep doing that until he passes out.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> If that happens. Just get your arms around their chest and squeeze as hard as you can.  When you feel him exhale tighted up the squeeze and lock it.  Keep doing that until he passes out.



From what position do you think something like that would work?


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> From what position do you think something like that would work?



Something cuddly should do it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> I posted it to show the intricate beauty of a smaller person utilizing the power of Judo and Bjj to overcome a much larger opponent.


  lol..yeah I'm watching you.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Something cuddly should do it.



Not necessarily.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> From what position do you think something like that would work?


lol.. I stated the position in my statement about squeezing someone until they pass out.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> lol.. I stated the position in my statement about squeezing someone until they pass out.



I don't see it, and from your description the only way that works is if you take *their* back, and it only works if you're waaaay stronger than the person you're rolling with.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I don't see it, and from your description the only way that works is if you take *their* back, and it only works if you're waaaay stronger than the person you're rolling with.


Or perhaps from a rather intimate guard?


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Or perhaps from a rather intimate guard?



Well there's the scorpion rib crush that starts from high guard, but that isn't just your arms, its mainly your legs doing the squeeze.


----------



## Martial D

Hanzou said:


> From what position do you think something like that would work?


The netflixnchill position


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> lol.. I stated the position in my statement about squeezing someone until they pass out.


This is sarcasm right? Sometimes it's hard to tell.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> This is sarcasm right? Sometimes it's hard to tell.


Yes it is.  lol..


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> He didn’t do awfully until they got to the ground. I’m unsurprised by the last part. Most NGA folks would fare no better on the ground. Even with me putting more time into ground work, I don’t expect I’d match a BJJ brown belt on the ground. I’d look better (less panic) and be harder to take position on, but a strong purple belt should be able to destroy me on the ground, eventually.



He got put on the ground. So he lost the stand up as well.

But look more ninjas should be doing bjj comps. So good for him.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> From what position do you think something like that would work?


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> More like, you should know what you're getting into when you sign on the dotted line.


I assume the worse thing that happened is he tapped. (Just had a look. And it was the worlds friendliest arm bar)


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> This is sarcasm right? Sometimes it's hard to tell.


My real approach would have been to simply lower my stance like I always do.  My understanding of Ninjitsu is that it's an assassination art.  Which means going head to head in a grappling match is playing outside of the purpose of Ninjitsu.   Sort of like saying.  BJJ vs a Fencer.  Rules are: No swords allow.  BJJ wins. Fencing sucks.  From what I've read about Ninjitsu and from what I've seen from documentaries.  Ninjitsu was never created from sport perspective.     It was designed to sneak around and snuff people out or to gather intel.  

If I were to fight a "real ninja"  my guess is that I would probably get a knife in my side once the grappling started.  It's the same thing I would expect from an elite military team that is designed to do similar tasks "sneak around and snuff people out or gather intel."  Just the design of the weapons pretty much show what their focus was.

Now in modern times.  People try to adapt those techniques into a competition sports and for the most part it's just boils down to skills of one vs another.  So much is taken out of context with the style vs style.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Small kid beats big kid.  
I posted it to show the intricate beauty of a smaller person utilizing the power of Judo and Bjj to overcome a much larger opponent.
I posted it to show the intricate beauty of a smaller person utilizing the power of Mogolean Wrestling to overcome a much larger opponent.





I posted it to show the intricate beauty of a smaller person utilizing the power of Street fighting to overcome a much larger opponent.






I posted it to show the intricate beauty of a smaller person utilizing the power of Karate to overcome a much larger opponent.  Hanzou is always "stirring the pot" lol.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> My real approach would have been to simply lower my stance like I always do.  My understanding of Ninjitsu is that it's an assassination art.  Which means going head to head in a grappling match is playing outside of the purpose of Ninjitsu.   Sort of like saying.  BJJ vs a Fencer.  Rules are: No swords allow.  BJJ wins. Fencing sucks.  From what I've read about Ninjitsu and from what I've seen from documentaries.  Ninjitsu was never created from sport perspective.     It was designed to sneak around and snuff people out or to gather intel.
> 
> If I were to fight a "real ninja"  my guess is that I would probably get a knife in my side once the grappling started.  It's the same thing I would expect from an elite military team that is designed to do similar tasks "sneak around and snuff people out or gather intel."  Just the design of the weapons pretty much show what their focus was.
> 
> Now in modern times.  People try to adapt those techniques into a competition sports and for the most part it's just boils down to skills of one vs another.  So much is taken out of context with the style vs style.



Ninjas were you average soldiers when they were tasked with doing dirty jobs.

Rather than some specialized group.

So the bjj guy could technically be a ninja if he say broke in to a house and stole something.

Modern ninjitsu is more of a perfomance art or demo art rather than a sport art.


----------



## dunc

Hanzou said:


> It actually takes less time to achieve a blue belt in Bjj. Usually only about 1-2 years of continuous training.



Really?
I appreciate that each academy operates a bit differently, but I don’t know anyone at my academy who trains 2 times a week to get blue belt that quickly (people who train every day - sure)


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Modern ninjitsu is more of a perfomance art or demo art rather than a sport art.


Unfortunately.  I mean it's good that no one is freelancing jobs like that, but it would be nice if the functional part was still trained so that their is some historical context and knowledge that remains.  At the very least turn it into a simulated competition where two teams are given the task of simulated assassination or Intel retrieval, without the lethal side of things.  Give them a time table a spy cam and some room cameras.  Start the game off where one or two people on the team are spies but no one knows who that is.  Give them a week to perform the task,  get some video edits add some history and hopefully it would be a nice history based "game show" that would highlight the difficulty in what Ninjas actually had to do.  

Not sure if something like that would attract viewers though.  People tend to like these ninjas. And not someone that was dressed in everyday Japanese fashion blending in with a crowd.


----------



## frank raud

Hanzou said:


> They talk about that in the video info:
> 
> "This was the championship match in the gi-division.  It was a 5 minute match / NAGA Rules.  Nik and his brother Jeremiah were the only competitors at this event that were trained in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu and Judo.  As far as we know, all of the other competitors were *black belts* in *Hapkido, Ninjitsu, and Japanese Ju-jutsu*.  Many of us have not seen a style-vs-style tournament since the early days of the UFC, so this was a very interesting event.  The gentleman Nikolas Collier faced in this video told us he won the championship match last year with a score of 35 to 0.  Even though there were various styles and backgrounds competing at this event, all the participants showed great courage and sportsmanship."
> 
> So yeah....


A grappling tournament where only two competitors have BJJ and judo backgrounds? Sounds like serious competition.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Unfortunately.  I mean it's good that no one is freelancing jobs like that, but it would be nice if the functional part was still trained so that their is some historical context and knowledge that remains.  At the very least turn it into a simulated competition where two teams are given the task of simulated assassination or Intel retrieval, without the lethal side of things.  Give them a time table a spy cam and some room cameras.  Start the game off where one or two people on the team are spies but no one knows who that is.  Give them a week to perform the task,  get some video edits add some history and hopefully it would be a nice history based "game show" that would highlight the difficulty in what Ninjas actually had to do.
> 
> Not sure if something like that would attract viewers though.  People tend to like these ninjas. And not someone that was dressed in everyday Japanese fashion blending in with a crowd.



The mole sort of did that.


----------



## frank raud

Hanzou said:


> From what position do you think something like that would work?


The struggle snuggle?


----------



## Hanzou

dunc said:


> Really?
> I appreciate that each academy operates a bit differently, but I don’t know anyone at my academy who trains 2 times a week to get blue belt that quickly (people who train every day - sure)


 
Uh, 2 years is a long time as a white belt, and going twice a week for 2 years is a decent amount of practice for a hobbyist or non-competitive martial artist. The average time it takes to achieve black is 10 years, which is a very long time considering that in most MAs you reach black in 3-5 years. 3-4 years as a white belt would make many people quit the system. That's like getting a stripe a year, which is absurd. Not to mention that there's still Blue, Purple, and Brown to get through, and most people quit while blue because it's an abyss all of itself.

Also just because its twice a week doesn't mean you're not doing a lot of Bjj. You could be taking 2-3 classes per session along with home practice, seminars, and privates. If you train everyday and you're extremely competition-driven you'll probably reach Brown in 5 years and black in 6-7 years.


----------



## Hanzou

frank raud said:


> A grappling tournament where only two competitors have BJJ and judo backgrounds? Sounds like serious competition.



Stop style-bashing Frank!


----------



## wab25

frank raud said:


> A grappling tournament where only two competitors have BJJ and judo backgrounds? Sounds like serious competition.


A grappling tournament where only two competitors have BJJ and Judo backgrounds... and only one of them made the Championship Match.


----------



## Hanzou

wab25 said:


> A grappling tournament where only two competitors have BJJ and Judo backgrounds... and only one of them made the Championship Match.



Ever stop to think that the Bjj player beat the other Bjj player?

It happens.


----------



## Martial D

Hanzou said:


> Ever stop to think that the Bjj player beat the other Bjj player?
> 
> It happens.


We call those sorts of situations "first round finals"


----------



## frank raud

Hanzou said:


> Stop style-bashing Frank!


There is other footage from this same tournament where the same  "kid" beats a 6 th dan Hapkido . Again, no age category, no weight category, no rank category.  Curious how it is under NAGA rules.


----------



## PiedmontChun

Hanzou said:


> Uh, 2 years is a long time as a white belt, and going twice a week for 2 years is a decent amount of practice for a hobbyist or non-competitive martial artist. The average time it takes to achieve black is 10 years, which is a very long time considering that in most MAs you reach black in 3-5 years. 3-4 years as a white belt would make many people quit the system. That's like getting a stripe a year, which is absurd. Not to mention that there's still Blue, Purple, and Brown to get through, and most people quit while blue because it's an abyss all of itself.
> 
> Also just because its twice a week doesn't mean you're not doing a lot of Bjj. You could be taking 2-3 classes per session along with home practice, seminars, and privates. If you train everyday and you're extremely competition-driven you'll probably reach Brown in 5 years and black in 6-7 years.



I will point out that the average time to black belt is based on a small sample size of people who had the fortitude and determination to actually make it that far though. Your non-athletic hobbyist, who might train twice a week, and who might never reach black belt (probably a much larger sample size of this group) is going to stay at white belt much longer in comparison. My instructor did not reach brown belt in 5 years, and some of my teammates spent a solid 2 years or more at white belt.
Most blue belts, at 2 years in, would likely not have the standup skill this 135 pound kid displays here without cross training some Judo too. But either way, if only with 1-2 years of serious BJJ training, this kid would have spent more time working on fundamentals like side control > mount > armbar that he used here than a Ninjitsu black belt likely ever has. Does it make the black belt look pathetic? No. Does it demonstrate BJJ as a very effective as grappling method? Most definitely.


----------



## Yokozuna514

We have a saying at our dojo, "the tatami doesn't lie".  Regardless of the colour of belt around your waist, your performance on the mat will reflect the effort you put into your training.  Thus, a blue belt that trains religiously could beat a black belt who doesn't in a single roll but it should not happen on a regular basis.   If it does and I was the black belt, I would question my training.  

Each opportunity to test yourself against an opponent is an opportunity to see the truth in your training.   Everyone loses a match once in awhile but it is what you do after the loss that is important.  Persistence and perseverance as in the Japanese Proverb "Fall down seven times get up eight " is how I encourage everyone to view a defeat.  If you want to be better, train.


----------



## Hanzou

frank raud said:


> There is other footage from this same tournament where the same  "kid" beats a 6 th dan Hapkido . Again, no age category, no weight category, no rank category.  Curious how it is under NAGA rules.



I've been at small competitions where this has happened. If the number of competitors is low, people will compete with weight disparities so that their day and money isnt wasted. Sometimes women will compete against men, and you'll see crazy weight disparities like the one in the video. All parties have to agree of course.


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> You mean the fight where the dude lays on his back the whole fight and kicks Ali's legs?
> 
> Not sure we can call that wrestling...


It was the result of Ali negotiating a very restrictive rule set and still getting messed up by inoki.  The entire event is in YouTube and is a cool look back at a bizarre spectacle from the 70s.


----------



## dunc

Hanzou said:


> Uh, 2 years is a long time as a white belt, and going twice a week for 2 years is a decent amount of practice for a hobbyist or non-competitive martial artist. The average time it takes to achieve black is 10 years, which is a very long time considering that in most MAs you reach black in 3-5 years. 3-4 years as a white belt would make many people quit the system. That's like getting a stripe a year, which is absurd. Not to mention that there's still Blue, Purple, and Brown to get through, and most people quit while blue because it's an abyss all of itself.
> 
> Also just because its twice a week doesn't mean you're not doing a lot of Bjj. You could be taking 2-3 classes per session along with home practice, seminars, and privates. If you train everyday and you're extremely competition-driven you'll probably reach Brown in 5 years and black in 6-7 years.



10 years average to get a BJJ black belt equates to 2 &1/2 years at each belt before that I think. So the average mid level BJJ blue will have been training for 3-4 years

My point is that comparing belt colours across styles is apples and oranges

The mat time that the guy has had to achieve a blue in BJJ and brown in Judo is probably a lot more than it'd take a guy to get black in ninjutsu, AND the skill sets are different (eg next to no ground work in ninjutsu)

Having said that I don't know what dan grade the guy in the video is or how much mat time he's put in. Kudos to him for having a go, but his movement certainly wasn't very well developed


----------



## Michele123

Reading this thread makes me want to stay away from any BJJ studies because that kind of condescending attitude is not where I want to spend my time.

While I do hope someday to have the financial means to study a grappling art, (a guest instructor taught a few classes of jujitsu at my Karate club back in the 1990's and I loved it) I have now crossed BJJ off the potential list.  If BJJ needs that much negativity toward others to promote itself, well, it must be compensating for something.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanzou

dunc said:


> The mat time that the guy has had to achieve a blue in BJJ and brown in Judo is probably a lot more than it'd take a guy to get black in ninjutsu, AND the skill sets are different (eg next to no ground work in ninjutsu)



Actually, Ninjutsu and Toshindo has ground fighting now. They call it Earth Style (or something) and they say its awesome. Here's Masaaki Hatsumi doing some:






Here's Toshindo folks learning how to pass the guard (for some reason):


----------



## dunc

Hmm I dunno about toshindo, but the bujinkan has next to no ground fighting - probably less than 5% of the curriculum
You'll be hard pressed to find many other clips of Hatsumi doing newaza amongst the 1,000s of other videos of him out there

The second clip isn't toshindo, it's a bujinkan guy who's also a BJJ black belt - called Simon Yeo


----------



## Hanzou

dunc said:


> Hmm I dunno about toshindo, but the bujinkan has next to no ground fighting - probably less than 5% of the curriculum
> You'll be hard pressed to find many other clips of Hatsumi doing newaza amongst the 1,000s of other videos of him out there



5% isn't "next to nothing", and I've seen a lot of Bujinkan folks doing ground fighting. Maybe not Hatsumi himself (though after watching that video, he probably shouldn't do anymore), but there's plenty of Ninjutsu practitioners doing it.

Here's one such example:






They claim those movements come directly from their kata. 

As for Toshindo, yeah they have an entire portion of their art dedicated to ground fighting. 



> The second clip isn't toshindo, it's a bujinkan guy who's also a BJJ black belt - called Simon Yeo



That probably explains why it looks competent. I still don't know why you would teach guard passing in a non-sport dojo, unless you want your ninjas to compete.


----------



## dunc

Probably I'm trying to make my point in a clumsy manner - apologies

The technical curriculum in the Bujinkan, which comes from old Japanese schools of budo, contains very little ground fighting
Ground fighting accounts for around 5% of the curriculum and all of it involves strikes as a core part of the set ups

So when you compare the ground fighting skills of someone who's been training in the Bujinkan (5% of mat time on ground fighting) for say 5 years, they will likely be comparable to someone who has been training BJJ (say 80% ground fighting) for 2.5 months

Hence the result in the OP's video clip is rather predictable

There are some dojos who are incorporating ground fighting into their curriculum. The sensible ones are cross training BJJ to do this, the not-so-sensible ones are making up stuff


----------



## frank raud

Hanzou said:


> I've been at small competitions where this has happened. If the number of competitors is low, people will compete with weight disparities so that their day and money isnt wasted. Sometimes women will compete against men, and you'll see crazy weight disparities like the one in the video. All parties have to agree of course.





Hanzou said:


> he gentleman Nikolas Collier faced in this video told us he won the championship match last year with a score of 35 to 0. Even though there were various styles and backgrounds competing at this event, all the participants showed great courage and sportsmanship."


Absolutely, there are small tournaments where not many people show up. I know, try being a 50 year old heavyweight orange belt in a judo competition. If the tournament was won the previous year by the ninjer with a perfect score, and the following year only two competitors with judo/bjj backgrounds (conveniently brothers) show up, I'm pretty sure this is not a NAGA competition. There is enough martial arts in Knoxville and the surrounding area that it shouldn't be difficult to attract some caliber of talent.


----------



## Hanzou

frank raud said:


> Absolutely, there are small tournaments where not many people show up. I know, try being a 50 year old heavyweight orange belt in a judo competition. If the tournament was won the previous year by the ninjer with a perfect score, and the following year only two competitors with judo/bjj backgrounds (conveniently brothers) show up, I'm pretty sure this is not a NAGA competition. There is enough martial arts in Knoxville and the surrounding area that it shouldn't be difficult to attract some caliber of talent.



So you think there's some shannagains at work Frank beyond a Bjj kid beating a grown up Ninja at a grappling tournament?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Michele123 said:


> Reading this thread makes me want to stay away from any BJJ studies because that kind of condescending attitude is not where I want to spend my time.
> 
> While I do hope someday to have the financial means to study a grappling art, (a guest instructor taught a few classes of jujitsu at my Karate club back in the 1990's and I loved it) I have now crossed BJJ off the potential list.  If BJJ needs that much negativity toward others to promote itself, well, it must be compensating for something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Its only a select few. All the bjj practitioners ive met in purpose dont share that negativity towards other arts. Most actually cross train in something else


----------



## pdg

Michele123 said:


> Reading this thread makes me want to stay away from any BJJ studies because that kind of condescending attitude is not where I want to spend my time.
> 
> While I do hope someday to have the financial means to study a grappling art, (a guest instructor taught a few classes of jujitsu at my Karate club back in the 1990's and I loved it) I have now crossed BJJ off the potential list.  If BJJ needs that much negativity toward others to promote itself, well, it must be compensating for something.



I wouldn't cross it off your list if you want to study grappling tbh.

Like many things, it's extremely effective - with the right training.

Unfortunately, it's this art's turn to have a few very vocal 'supporters' that feel the need to try to talk everything else down...

Find a decent teacher who doesn't try to make him/herself look better by saying everything else is crap and I'm quite sure there's much to gain from it.


----------



## frank raud

Hanzou said:


> So you think there's some shannagains at work Frank beyond a Bjj kid beating a grown up Ninja at a grappling tournament?


You mean beside the  large crowd of two children, who are out numbered by the score table, or the ref being the hapkido guy previously beaten? The Collier brothers post a  lot of videos of them, but its just them, no students or teachers, and then "competition" footage like this.


----------



## drop bear

frank raud said:


> You mean beside the  large crowd of two children, who are out numbered by the score table, or the ref being the hapkido guy previously beaten? The Collier brothers post a  lot of videos of them, but its just them, no students or teachers, and then "competition" footage like this.



Yeah I say tentively.

I looked up the comp and it is to a certain degree a bit of an all styles event. But then we have similar and some pretty decent grapplers turn up.

Apparently we had a krav instructor turn up to one of ours. So good luck to them.

The point of these competitions is to turn up and get smashed. So you can take home some experience. Especially hits because it is the least likely to get hurt.

Unless you just refuse to tap. Like some of our guys.

The bjjer in question was really nice with that arm bar so honestly good on him for that as well.

I just don't see anyone being the worse off as a martial artist or a person from that video.

I also never expected the ninja to win . Generally you need a complete revamp of your training structure to win fights or competitions.


----------



## drop bear

dunc said:


> Probably I'm trying to make my point in a clumsy manner - apologies
> 
> The technical curriculum in the Bujinkan, which comes from old Japanese schools of budo, contains very little ground fighting
> Ground fighting accounts for around 5% of the curriculum and all of it involves strikes as a core part of the set ups
> 
> So when you compare the ground fighting skills of someone who's been training in the Bujinkan (5% of mat time on ground fighting) for say 5 years, they will likely be comparable to someone who has been training BJJ (say 80% ground fighting) for 2.5 months
> 
> Hence the result in the OP's video clip is rather predictable
> 
> There are some dojos who are incorporating ground fighting into their curriculum. The sensible ones are cross training BJJ to do this, the not-so-sensible ones are making up stuff



If you don't do ground fighting as a methodology you should be wrestling not bjj by the way.

Because they do take down defense fight for top position and try to stand back up.


----------



## drop bear

Michele123 said:


> Reading this thread makes me want to stay away from any BJJ studies because that kind of condescending attitude is not where I want to spend my time.
> 
> While I do hope someday to have the financial means to study a grappling art, (a guest instructor taught a few classes of jujitsu at my Karate club back in the 1990's and I loved it) I have now crossed BJJ off the potential list.  If BJJ needs that much negativity toward others to promote itself, well, it must be compensating for something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Do sambo. Then you can be condescending of bjj.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> If you don't do ground fighting as a methodology you should be wrestling not bjj by the way.
> 
> Because they do take down defense fight for top position and try to stand back up.



They'll never do that because they want to claim that ground fighting is native to their MA system, but was just hidden within the kata. Thus they'll stick to BJJ because they think it's just Judo newaza (i.e. Asian).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If you don't do ground fighting as a methodology you should be wrestling not bjj by the way.
> 
> Because they do take down defense fight for top position and try to stand back up.


Good point.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> They'll never do that because they want to claim that ground fighting is native to their MA system, but was just hidden within the kata. Thus they'll stick to BJJ because they think it's just Judo newaza (i.e. Asian).



Yeah I am off that whole concept by the way. Martial arts are a made up thing. The differences occur only in people's heads.

What I mean is what is and isn't part of someone's style occurs entirely in the mind of that person.

So let's just use the best tool for the job.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Do sambo. Then you can be condescending of bjj.



Speaking of which, how's Sambo doing in Australia? It's pretty much DOA in the states.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> The mole sort of did that.


I learned something new.  It made it 5 seasons so that's good lol.   I'll have to give it a quick look to see how they set things up to make it entertaining.  Thanks for sharing that.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> They call it Earth Style (or something) and they say its awesome


I'll answer give a response to this one for you.   I'm not a grappling guy but those videos are questionable.  Now take it with the understanding that I'm not a grappling guy and there's 90% chance I don't know what I'm looking at.,, but hmmm that 10% certainty is looking pretty solid.   It's just the mechanics of it all.  After paying attention to body mechanics some stuff just makes you wonder "Have they really tried the technique that they are showing in a demo?"



Hanzou said:


> but there's plenty of Ninjutsu practitioners doing it.


My guess is that this is new stuff added.  The entire concept of being stealthy is to do the job quickly and not wrestle on the ground for 3 minutes and hope no one comes by.  Even 1 minute is enough time to yell for help and to attract attention.   Mobility would be a must for anyone sneaking around trying to get in and get out.  Not saying you are wrong, but my guess is that it's probably something that was added.   Sort of like how some striking schools add BJJ components because the striking system had limited ground fighting.  

Not every system has a dedicated ground fighting component.  If a person is on a battlefield or village skirmish, then you can lay on the ground if you like and hope the other side doesn't come to the aid of their fellow soldier.  And you can hope that you won't get a knife in you t while you try to get off the ground after being tangled up with your enemy.  

Things have to be taken into context and people just need to except if their system is limited on ground fighting instead of just making stuff up, just for the purpose of saying "yeah we we do that, ground fighting stuff"


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> If you don't do ground fighting as a methodology you should be wrestling not bjj by the way.
> 
> Because they do take down defense fight for top position and try to stand back up.


More and more these days I’m trying to include that approach in the BJJ I teach. It’s important to know how to work from the bottom when you have to, but it shouldn’t be your default in most situations.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Michele123 said:


> Reading this thread makes me want to stay away from any BJJ studies because that kind of condescending attitude is not where I want to spend my time.
> 
> While I do hope someday to have the financial means to study a grappling art, (a guest instructor taught a few classes of jujitsu at my Karate club back in the 1990's and I loved it) I have now crossed BJJ off the potential list.  If BJJ needs that much negativity toward others to promote itself, well, it must be compensating for something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Most of us don’t actually have such negative attitudes. I’ve been a BJJ instructor for some years now. I invite you to look through my posting history and see if you can find any examples of my trashing other arts. I don’t think you’ll find any.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> More and more these days I’m trying to include that approach in the BJJ I teach. It’s important to know how to work from the bottom when you have to, but it shouldn’t be your default in most situations.



Yeah. It is important supplemental knowledge.

Even as a drill. It teaches a lot of important ideas. I mean even just taking that will game into bjj submissions is beneficial.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Speaking of which, how's Sambo doing in Australia? It's pretty much DOA in the states.



Nice vid.

I have never really seen it. But then I have never really seen wrestling here either. It is mostly jits for grappling.

Our gym in theory is strong wrestling base  but I am not all that great a representation of it. Mostly because I am lazy. And stand up is hard.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I'll answer give a response to this one for you.   I'm not a grappling guy but those videos are questionable.  Now take it with the understanding that I'm not a grappling guy and there's 90% chance I don't know what I'm looking at.,, but hmmm that 10% certainty is looking pretty solid.   It's just the mechanics of it all.  After paying attention to body mechanics some stuff just makes you wonder "Have they really tried the technique that they are showing in a demo?"



You're being quite generous. I can give the Ninjas at Bujinkan Matacowhatever a pass, but the head of modern Ninjutsu should know better.



> My guess is that this is new stuff added.



You guess? Of course its new stuff added. I have no problem with that, but at least be real about where you got it from. You didn't get it from some ancient Ninja scroll, you got it in a Bjj gym or a video.



> The entire concept of being stealthy is to do the job quickly and not wrestle on the ground for 3 minutes and hope no one comes by.  Even 1 minute is enough time to yell for help and to attract attention.   Mobility would be a must for anyone sneaking around trying to get in and get out.  Not saying you are wrong, but my guess is that it's probably something that was added.   Sort of like how some striking schools add BJJ components because the striking system had limited ground fighting.
> 
> Not every system has a dedicated ground fighting component.  If a person is on a battlefield or village skirmish, then you can lay on the ground if you like and hope the other side doesn't come to the aid of their fellow soldier.  And you can hope that you won't get a knife in you t while you try to get off the ground after being tangled up with your enemy.
> 
> Things have to be taken into context and people just need to except if their system is limited on ground fighting instead of just making stuff up, just for the purpose of saying "yeah we we do that, ground fighting stuff"



Speaking of people making stuff up....






Enjoy.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

The "leg lifting" throw is one of the most difficult throws to develop. It requires single leg balance and leg flexibility. I give credit to that BJJ blue belt for being able to make that work. It's also one of the most difficult throw to counter. Even if many beginners don't know how to counter it, a black belt should know how to counter it. I don't see any counter intention in that clip.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> And stand up is hard.


I think ground game is harder than the stand up game. If you are good in stand up game, you can relax and your opponent will have hard time to take you down. But if you are good in ground game, you can't relax as you do in the stand up game.


----------



## Headhunter

Michele123 said:


> Reading this thread makes me want to stay away from any BJJ studies because that kind of condescending attitude is not where I want to spend my time.
> 
> While I do hope someday to have the financial means to study a grappling art, (a guest instructor taught a few classes of jujitsu at my Karate club back in the 1990's and I loved it) I have now crossed BJJ off the potential list.  If BJJ needs that much negativity toward others to promote itself, well, it must be compensating for something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I 100% see your point especially with the Gracie's constantly trashing then stupid threads like this. But not everyone's as closed minded as this. Bjj is good does it have all the answers 100% not just like any style. The best instructors are the ones that know that. Frankly if anyone's got to put down other styles to say how good theirs is that's some serious insecurity issues they have


----------



## dunc

drop bear said:


> If you don't do ground fighting as a methodology you should be wrestling not bjj by the way.
> 
> Because they do take down defense fight for top position and try to stand back up.



Yeah I think that's valid
Both BJJ & wrestling would seem to fit the bill

FWIW - I gravitated towards BJJ as 1) it fits quite naturally with the older Japanese schools which do cover take downs and defences, 2) it's an easy adaption from "escape to try and submit" to "escape and stand", and 3) I feel that the gi forces you to develop technical solutions that perhaps you won't get without the gi


----------



## dunc

Hanzou said:


> They'll never do that because they want to claim that ground fighting is native to their MA system, but was just hidden within the kata.



Probably there are some people who try to claim that
BUT, in my experience they are very much in the minority - the techniques of the old Japanese schools are pretty much in the public domain and it's clear to all how much newaza they include


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> You're being quite generous. I can give the Ninjas at Bujinkan Matacowhatever a pass, but the head of modern Ninjutsu should know better.
> 
> 
> 
> You guess? Of course its new stuff added. I have no problem with that, but at least be real about where you got it from. You didn't get it from some ancient Ninja scroll, you got it in a Bjj gym or a video.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of people making stuff up....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy.


The video reminds me of something my dad told me long ago "Do it right or don't do it at all"  I haven't thought about that in more than 30 years. If I had to teach a ninjutsu class. I would follow it the same way that I follow my Jow Ga Kung Fu and that is.. "We don't play on the ground, we escape from it."   I would stay true to this as much as possible and just focus on being good with 2 things in terms of ground fighting.

1. Escaping and countering any of the opponents attempts to be put on the ground.
2. Escaping from the ground once the opponent is successful with #1.
3. If I go to the ground it should be of my own choice and not because of my opponent's successful technique.  Being on the ground should always be for a moment.

If I can be really good with #1 and #2 then I can deny the ground fight and deny / avoid where my my opponent is stronger than me.  I wouldn't add anything to the system unless it works well with #1 , #2, and #3.  My opinion is that once Ninjutsu gets into having 3 minute grappling matches, then it has moved very far away from the concept of finishing the fight quickly and as a result it throws away a lot of the concepts and true focus of what Ninjutsu was.  Now if there's a BJJ technique that will allow me to stay within 1-3 then go for it.  

I guess I look at things like the role of a sniper.  Once a sniper starts to learn how to enter a hostile building, he's no longer sniping and knowing how to enter a building doesn't help him be a better sniper.  Learning how to be on the ground for more than a moment probably doesn't help someone to be good at being a Ninja.  

Jinichi Kawakami is supposed to be the last of the Ninja.  If this is true then everything he has said is far from what we see from other people claiming to be Ninjas. The concept and focus of training are totally on opposite ends.   
Japan's last ninja Jinichi Kawakami, 63, can hear a needle drop in the next room and kill from 20 paces | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Hanzou

Headhunter said:


> I 100% see your point especially with the Gracie's constantly trashing then stupid threads like this. But not everyone's as closed minded as this. Bjj is good does it have all the answers 100% not just like any style. The best instructors are the ones that know that. Frankly if anyone's got to put down other styles to say how good theirs is that's some serious insecurity issues they have



Yeah, because the Gracie's are the only martial artists to ever claim that their arts are superior to all others.  

I suppose you didn't read some of the descriptions of those Ninja videos I posted. Quite a few describe their ground techniques as something you won't find in "sports or UFC". Implying that what we do is just fun and games, while they do the "real stuff". They aren't the only ones either, so I have no issue being critical of traditional styles who claim they're more effective than styles with a competitive component.


----------



## frank raud

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The "leg lifting" throw is one of the most difficult throws to develop. It requires single leg balance and leg flexibility. I give credit to that BJJ blue belt for being able to make that work. It's also one of the most difficult throw to counter. Even if many beginners don't know how to counter it, a black belt should know how to counter it. I don't see any counter intention in that clip.


That blue belt in BJJ is also a brown belt in judo.


----------



## dunc

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, because the Gracie's are the only martial artists to ever claim that their arts are superior to all others.
> 
> I suppose you didn't read some of the descriptions of those Ninja videos I posted. Quite a few describe their ground techniques as something you won't find in "sports or UFC". Implying that what we do is just fun and games, while they do the "real stuff". They aren't the only ones either, so I have no issue being critical of traditional styles who claim they're more effective than styles with a competitive component.



There are some idiots in the Bujinkan (often referred to as ninjutsu) and a proportion of those idiots try to pass off some crappy ground fighting that they made up as somehow unique & thereby different from sports/UFC. Unfortunately these idiots seem to like posting videos online...

The vast majority of people in the Bujinkan will simply say that "we don't do much ground fighting". There are loads of historical reasons for the lack of a focus on the ground, but bear in mind that mostly the curriculum within the Bujinkan comes from old schools of Japanese martial arts (aka jujutsu, budo, etc)

The ground fighting that does exist is different from modern grappling in that its objective is to finish the opponent quickly or to create space to access weapons (often with strikes) whilst retaining a high degree of mobility (thereby sacrificing some control)


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> The video reminds me of something my dad told me long ago "Do it right or don't do it at all"  I haven't thought about that in more than 30 years. If I had to teach a ninjutsu class. I would follow it the same way that I follow my Jow Ga Kung Fu and that is.. "We don't play on the ground, we escape from it."   I would stay true to this as much as possible and just focus on being good with 2 things in terms of ground fighting.
> 
> 1. Escaping and countering any of the opponents attempts to be put on the ground.
> 2. Escaping from the ground once the opponent is successful with #1.
> 3. If I go to the ground it should be of my own choice and not because of my opponent's successful technique.  Being on the ground should always be for a moment.
> 
> If I can be really good with #1 and #2 then I can deny the ground fight and deny / avoid where my my opponent is stronger than me.  I wouldn't add anything to the system unless it works well with #1 , #2, and #3.  My opinion is that once Ninjutsu gets into having 3 minute grappling matches, then it has moved very far away from the concept of finishing the fight quickly and as a result it throws away a lot of the concepts and true focus of what Ninjutsu was.  Now if there's a BJJ technique that will allow me to stay within 1-3 then go for it.



Yeah, now you're entering silly territory.

There are people out there that will put you on the ground, and keep you on the ground. If MMAists, Judoka, Jiujiteiros, Samboists, and state and collegiate wrestlers can be taken down, you can be taken down as well. Unless Jow Ga has some grappling escapes I've never seen before, punching, kicking, and clawing isn't going to cut the mustard. Once the first blows start dropping from the superior position, you're going to start reacting instead of thinking and it'll be all over before you know it because you're going to be taking very significant damage.

Additionally, it shouldn't take me, or any mid-to advanced level grappler 3 minutes to subdue someone on the ground unless my opponent is also a mid-to advanced level grappler. If you have no grappling experience and a grappler is on top of you, you're screwed unless you've trained against it.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that whatever kung fu skills you've developed will protect you from gravity, they won't. This is especially true in the US where grappling is exploding in popularity and people are flooding into wrestling, BJJ, Sambo, and MMA prgrams and mixing everything together to create even more potent grappling systems. Frankly traditional arts aren't keeping up with that evolution, much less learning how to properly counter it. Some are adopting Bjj into their programs, which is a good thing, but unless they're doing dedicated programs, it may not be enough.

In short, there's nothing wrong with some cross-training. I'm sure you can find some Bjj or Wrestling in your neck of the woods.


----------



## Martial D

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, because the Gracie's are the only martial artists to ever claim that their arts are superior to all others.


Surely not, people have been doing that forever. 

BJJ is only special in that they have tended to put their money where their mouths are.


----------



## drop bear

dunc said:


> Yeah I think that's valid
> Both BJJ & wrestling would seem to fit the bill
> 
> FWIW - I gravitated towards BJJ as 1) it fits quite naturally with the older Japanese schools which do cover take downs and defences, 2) it's an easy adaption from "escape to try and submit" to "escape and stand", and 3) I feel that the gi forces you to develop technical solutions that perhaps you won't get without the gi



There is also more bjj out there. People understand it a bit more. So I realize why people do it.

This video on ben Aiken kind of shows the difference in priorities. So even if you jits it is worthwhile thinking about.


----------



## Hanzou

Martial D said:


> Surely not, people have been doing that forever.
> 
> BJJ is only special in that they have tended to put their money where their mouths are.



Exactly. Somehow I don't think "Michele" has any issue when Karate or JJJ talks trash on those "MMA meanie-heads".


----------



## Martial D

Hanzou said:


> Exactly. Somehow I don't think "Michele" has any issue when Karate or JJJ talks trash on those "MMA meanie-heads".


Followed by 100 reasons they aren't willing to prove it.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Exactly. Somehow I don't think "Michele" has any issue when Karate or JJJ talks trash on those "MMA meanie-heads".



I have an issue when they do... It lowers everyone associated with them, just like when bjj people do it.

There is no "best" - there's best for the person and best for the situation, but that's it.

I think tkd is best for me, but I don't think it'll give me superpowers to prevail in any/every encounter, because that would be silly.


----------



## Headhunter

Hanzou said:


> Exactly. Somehow I don't think "Michele" has any issue when Karate or JJJ talks trash on those "MMA meanie-heads".


I have a problem with anyone who does that regardless of style because it's stupid, childish and pointless


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> I have an issue when they do.....





Headhunter said:


> I have a problem with anyone who does that regardless of style because it's stupid, childish and pointless



LoL! Sure you do. 

Just fyi, trashing other systems (and then backing it up) is part of the reason Bjj is as popular as it is today. "Lowering everyone associated with them" is just some elitist pearl-clutching BS, because again, EVERY martial art is guilty of it, and if they could roll up on a Bjj school and kick the crap out of all the students in there to prop up their art of choice, they'd do it in a heartbeat.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> "Lowering everyone associated with them" is just some elitist BS, because again, EVERY martial art is guilty of it, and if they could roll up on a Bjj school and kick the crap out of all the students in there to prop up their art of choice, they'd do it in a heartbeat



Yeah, no, I don't think they would.

At least they wouldn't in civilised locations.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Yeah, no, I don't think they would.
> 
> At least they wouldn't in civilised locations.



Oh yes they would. Bruce Lee rolled up on a karate competition to promote his style while dissing traditional karate in the process. Would you consider Bruce Lee "uncivilized"?


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Oh yes they would. Bruce Lee rolled up on a karate competition to promote his style while dissing traditional karate in the process. Would you consider Bruce Lee "uncivilized"?



In that context, yes.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> In that context, yes.



And that would put you in the stark minority, since people celebrate him challenging the conventions of Karate and Kung Fu at the time. Heck, read his Tao of Jeet Kun Do, the entire book is a slam on traditional MA systems.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> And that would put you in the stark minority, since people celebrate him challenging the conventions of Karate and Kung Fu at the time. Heck, read his Tao of Jeet Kun Do, the entire book is a slam on traditional MA systems.



You can challenge convention without being an idiot.

And if you think stuff like school invasions are a perfectly reasonable thing to do then you've got some quite serious psychological issues going on.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> You can challenge convention without being an idiot.
> 
> And if you think stuff like school invasions are a perfectly reasonable thing to do then you've got some quite serious psychological issues going on.



So was Bruce Lee being an idiot when he openly slammed traditional styles? Is the Tao of JKD an idiotic book?


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> So was Bruce Lee being an idiot when he openly slammed traditional styles? Is the Tao of JKD an idiotic book?



I don't know how much actual slamming was done, and I've never read the book...

But, if he had the same attitude as you (and if the book reads like you wrote it), then yes.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> I don't know how much actual slamming was done, and I've never read the book...
> 
> But, if he had the same attitude as you (and if the book reads like you wrote it), then yes.



Lee makes me look like a lover of all martial arts.

Anyway, the POINT is that styles slamming other styles is nothing new, and it certainly didn't begin (or end) with the Gracie Challenge.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JowGaWolf said:


> 1. Escaping and countering any of the opponents attempts to be put on the ground.
> 2. Escaping from the ground once the opponent is successful with #1.
> 3. If I go to the ground it should be of my own choice and not because of my opponent's successful technique. Being on the ground should always be for a moment.
> 
> If I can be really good with #1 and #2 then I can deny the ground fight and deny / avoid where my my opponent is stronger than me. I wouldn't add anything to the system unless it works well with #1 , #2, and #3. My opinion is that once Ninjutsu gets into having 3 minute grappling matches, then it has moved very far away from the concept of finishing the fight quickly and as a result it throws away a lot of the concepts and true focus of what Ninjutsu was.* Now if there's a BJJ technique that will allow me to stay within 1-3 then go for it*.


BJJ does indeed have material to help with 1-3 on your list. If I'm sharing info with someone who already knows how to fight standing up, then that material would be my first priority.

(Learning how to take someone down, keep them down, and finish them on the ground will allow you to explore the escapes and counters in much more depth, but you don't need to be good at those in order to learn the basics of stopping the takedown and escaping the ground.)


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Lee makes me look like a lover of all martial arts.
> 
> Anyway, the POINT is that styles slamming other styles is nothing new, and it certainly didn't begin (or end) with the Gracie Challenge.



I know it's nothing new, and it's not restricted to bjj at all.

Doesn't make it reasonable.

When it's the pioneers of an art doing it, it's slightly more understandable (still not reasonable) - but a few generations later it gets excessively stupid.

Just like how your insistence that everyone would do the same if they could - it's not only unreasonable, it's wrong.

Not everyone has such a pathetic mindset.


----------



## pdg

For information purposes:

@Tony Dismukes - how many times have you felt the need to invade another school or bash their choice of style to validate your own choices and prop your capabilities?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> Speaking of which, how's Sambo doing in Australia? It's pretty much DOA in the states.


I don't know about Australia, but there are a few good Sambo people in the U.S.. I hope to get a chance to train with Reilly Bodycomb at some point. He's got some really good material.

I have had a little bit of actual Sambo training, but it wasn't with someone on that level. I still picked up some useful tricks though.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

pdg said:


> For information purposes:
> 
> @Tony Dismukes - how many times have you felt the need to invade another school or bash their choice of style to validate your own choices and prop your capabilities?


Never so far. I have spent a fair amount of time picking the brains of practitioners of other styles looking for useful tidbits I can steal and apply to my own game.

The way I look at it is this. Even if another art is 90% junk, it's a better use of my time looking through the 10% non-crap for something I can use than lecturing everybody about how terrible the rest of it is. (Not saying all other arts are 90% bad. That's just an extreme example for illustration.)


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> I know it's nothing new, and it's not restricted to bjj at all.
> 
> Doesn't make it reasonable.
> 
> When it's the pioneers of an art doing it, it's slightly more understandable (still not reasonable) - but a few generations later it gets excessively stupid.
> 
> Just like how your insistence that everyone would do the same if they could - it's not only unreasonable, it's wrong.
> 
> Not everyone has such a pathetic mindset.



You mean if everyone did what actually works and stopped trying to relive an medieval Asian fairy tale?

Every street fight I've seen has resembled either a MMA fight or a grappling match. I've never seen anyone burst out Tiger Style and start clawing people, or use Mantis Hooks to toss someone.

I'd love to see it, but yeah.....


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hanzou said:


> Uh, 2 years is a long time as a white belt, and going twice a week for 2 years is a decent amount of practice for a hobbyist or non-competitive martial artist. The average time it takes to achieve black is 10 years, which is a very long time considering that in most MAs you reach black in 3-5 years. 3-4 years as a white belt would make many people quit the system. That's like getting a stripe a year, which is absurd. Not to mention that there's still Blue, Purple, and Brown to get through, and most people quit while blue because it's an abyss all of itself.
> 
> Also just because its twice a week doesn't mean you're not doing a lot of Bjj. You could be taking 2-3 classes per session along with home practice, seminars, and privates. If you train everyday and you're extremely competition-driven you'll probably reach Brown in 5 years and black in 6-7 years.



*I was rolling with a guy *not too long ago who achieved his blue belt in a little over a year.  He was decent but by the standards of the early nineties in BJJ he was not very good.  Back in the nineties it was very uncommon for someone to get a BJJ blue belt in a short period of time like a year or even two.  Instead it was more common at least where I trained and every place that I knew off that it was around three years going three or more times a week. Back to the guy I was working with.  He had a lot of techniques in his arsenal.  *Some surprising*.  However, his overall fundamentals where good but not at a level I would expect for a BJJ blue belt.  The lack of serious fundamental skills made countering his moves easy even the surprising ones.  Back in the day Hanzou, there were no stripes for white belts either.  *Yet, people just kept on training and didn't worry about the belt to much.*  You could roll with a BJJ white belt that had been training for two or three years but hadn't gone to a seminar or been graded by one of the people coming from the Gracie Academy.  One of my instructors who was a Blue Belt Two Stripes stayed at that level for years while I was training with him.  Some people even passed him in rank because he just didn't go to seminars or when the training representative from the Gracie Academy came around.  Still he continued to just beat on people and eventually moved up and got his black belt many years later.  

Back to the video in the original post.  Kudos for the BJJ blue belt winning and kudos for the ninja guy entering and trying to improve his skill sets!


----------



## wab25

Hanzou said:


> if they could roll up on a Bjj school and kick the crap out of all the students in there to prop up their art of choice, they'd do it in a heartbeat.


So, if a BJJ school rolled up on a Boxing club, and got their tucuses handed to them in the boxing ring, would that lower your opinion of BJJ? More to the point of this thread, if a BJJ practitioner entered a boxing match and got seriously out boxed, would that mean that BJJ black belts are worthless?


Hanzou said:


> Honestly if I was the Ninjutsu practitioner, I'd throw my black belt in the garbage and start over.


 Or would you think that was good for the BJJ practitioner to get out and get some experience in a new area.

Lets be honest about the video in the OP for a minute. Yes, it showed a BJJ guy completely dominating some Ninjutsu black belt. So this BJJ phenom found probably the smallest grappling contest around, put on by people that are not experienced in grappling and looked good. I am sure the Mayweather would look great if he showed up at the Boys and Girls Club boxing tournament.

I look at this type of thing, as these arts are trying to expand into new areas and evolve. In this instance they are trying to add grappling and ground fighting. Isn't this what you are advocating?



Hanzou said:


> Frankly traditional arts aren't keeping up with that evolution, much less learning how to properly counter it. Some are adopting Bjj into their programs, which is a good thing, but unless they're doing dedicated programs, it may not be enough.
> 
> In short, there's nothing wrong with some cross-training. I'm sure you can find some Bjj or Wrestling in your neck of the woods.



In my opinion, it looks better to me for Ninja boy to step out of his comfort zone, to learn something new and gain more experience, than it does for phenom BJJ boy to find the smallest, least experienced grappling tournament to go win. Hopefully Ninja boy learned some things from rolling with an experienced grappler, and he is a better martial artist for it. I don't think piling on him, helps anybody.


----------



## pdg

wab25 said:


> So, if a BJJ school rolled up on a Boxing club, and got their tucuses handed to them in the boxing ring, would that lower your opinion of BJJ? More to the point of this thread, if a BJJ practitioner entered a boxing match and got seriously out boxed, would that mean that BJJ black belts are worthless?



I'm so looking forward to this answer


----------



## pdg

Tony Dismukes said:


> Never so far. I have spent a fair amount of time picking the brains of practitioners of other styles looking for useful tidbits I can steal and apply to my own game.
> 
> The way I look at it is this. Even if another art is 90% junk, it's a better use of my time looking through the 10% non-crap for something I can use than lecturing everybody about how terrible the rest of it is. (Not saying all other arts are 90% bad. That's just an extreme example for illustration.)



But, but, but...

Aren't you supposed to be out twice a week beating up kids doing karate and Kung Fu?

Apparently, every single person who is capable of that does it


----------



## Tony Dismukes

pdg said:


> But, but, but...
> 
> Aren't you supposed to be out twice a week beating up kids doing karate and Kung Fu?
> 
> Apparently, every single person who is capable of that does it


I learn more when I find someone (from whatever style) who can beat me up. I’m just selfish about my own personal growth that way.


----------



## wab25

Tony Dismukes said:


> I learn more when I find someone (from whatever style) who can beat me up.


I must have learned and continue to learn an awful lot...


----------



## Hanzou

wab25 said:


> So, if a BJJ school rolled up on a Boxing club, and got their tucuses handed to them in the boxing ring, would that lower your opinion of BJJ? More to the point of this thread, if a BJJ practitioner entered a boxing match and got seriously out boxed, would that mean that BJJ black belts are worthless?
> Or would you think that was good for the BJJ practitioner to get out and get some experience in a new area.



The difference being that Bjjers don't box, but Ninjutsu does contain throws and grappling.



> Lets be honest about the video in the OP for a minute. Yes, it showed a BJJ guy completely dominating some Ninjutsu black belt. So this BJJ phenom found probably the smallest grappling contest around, put on by people that are not experienced in grappling and looked good. I am sure the Mayweather would look great if he showed up at the Boys and Girls Club boxing tournament.



Again, there IS throwing and grappling in Ninjutsu.



> I look at this type of thing, as these arts are trying to expand into new areas and evolve. In this instance they are trying to add grappling and ground fighting. Isn't this what you are advocating?



Only if they admit where they got their stuff from.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Again, there IS throwing and grappling in Ninjutsu.


I assume Ninjutsu uses the self-defense approach and not the "sport" approach.

The issue is not the style but the mat time. If I wrestle 15 rounds daily and you only wrestle 2 times weekly, you won't have any chance to wrestle against me.

Many MA systems claim to have throwing in their system. But the throwing skill can only be developed through the "sport' environment. I don't believe the self-defense environment can be used to develop the throwing skill.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I assume Ninjutsu uses the self-defense approach and not the "sport" approach.
> 
> The issue is not the style but the mat time. If I wrestle 15 rounds daily and you only wrestle 2 times weekly, you won't have any chance to wrestle against me.
> 
> Many MA systems claim to have throwing in their system. But the throwing skill can only be developed through the "sport' environment. I don't believe the self-defense environment can be used to develop the throwing skill.



Now that is an interesting argument....

Let's expand this to general Japanese/Traditional Jiujitsu as a whole; Would you then argue that JJJ/TJJ throwing and grappling isn't close (effective-wise) to their descendant arts (Judo and Bjj)?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Hanzou said:


> Now that is an interesting argument....
> 
> Let's expand this to general Japanese/Traditional Jiujitsu as a whole; Would you then argue that JJJ/TJJ throwing and grappling isn't close (effective-wise) to their descendant arts (Judo and Bjj)?


Sport environment doesn't necessarily mean sanctioned sport. I can't speak to JJJ, but there's not a whole lot of Sambo competitions near me. However, about 1-1.5 hours each class/after class was spent in some combination of sparring, randori, rolling, or all 3 in one. The people there did not compete (some had in the past, but not all), and didn't follow any set competition rules like NAGA or olympic judo, but they could definitely use their skills effectively if they needed. 

I would agree that without resistance though, throwing and grappling aren't effective, even if the techniques are taught perfectly. But if a JJJ school has regular grappling and legitimate resistance training, there's no reason it shouldn't be effective.


----------



## Hanzou

kempodisciple said:


> Sport environment doesn't necessarily mean sanctioned sport. I can't speak to JJJ, but there's not a whole lot of Sambo competitions near me. However, about 1-1.5 hours each class/after class was spent in some combination of sparring, randori, rolling, or all 3 in one. The people there did not compete (some had in the past, but not all), and didn't follow any set competition rules like NAGA or olympic judo, but they could definitely use their skills effectively if they needed.
> 
> I would agree that without resistance though, throwing and grappling aren't effective, even if the techniques are taught perfectly. But if a JJJ school has regular grappling and legitimate resistance training, there's no reason it shouldn't be effective.



So as a form of JJJ, what's the problem with a Ninjutsu exponent entering a grappling tournament if they received proper training in their art? It certainly isn't akin to a wrestler entering a boxing tournament and not being allowed to wrestle right?

Here's some Ninja throws from the Bujinkan:






Perfectly legal in a grappling tournament.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Hanzou said:


> So as a form of JJJ, what's the problem with a Ninjutsu exponent entering a grappling tournament if they received proper training in their art? It certainly isn't akin to a wrestler entering a boxing tournament and not being allowed to wrestle right?


If ninjutsu includes grappling, and he receives 'proper training', then there shouldn't be an issue IMO. But we don't know if he received 'proper' training, assuming that includes a competitive grappling focus.

And I'm not too familiar with ninjutsu, but I believe (hoping someone will correct me if I'm wrong), its about a third grappling. So to reach the same level of proficiency in grappling they would have to have 3 times the experience. So if the blue belt has 3-4 years experience, the ninjutsu guy would need 9-12 years experience.

A better comparison IMO (I wasn't the one who stated the original comparison), would be when an MMA fighter, who trained at an 'MMA gym', goes to a boxing tournament and loses to a boxer. Doesn't mean the MMA fighter is bad, or that MMA is bad, but when you limit his other weapons/techniques, and none of the boxers, it gives the boxer a pretty big edge.


----------



## Hanzou

kempodisciple said:


> If ninjutsu includes grappling, and he receives 'proper training', then there shouldn't be an issue IMO. But we don't know if he received 'proper' training, assuming that includes a competitive grappling focus.



So in your opinion, what would be "proper training"?



> And I'm not too familiar with ninjutsu, but I believe (hoping someone will correct me if I'm wrong), its about a third grappling. So to reach the same level of proficiency in grappling they would have to have 3 times the experience. So if the blue belt has 3-4 years experience, the ninjutsu guy would need 9-12 years experience.



Eh, that's not really a fair comparison either because there's older schools of Bjj (usually Gjj) that are loaded with old-school self defense stuff which heavily resembles stuff you'd find in a traditional JJJ school, and a significant chunk of training time is devoted towards learning that stuff.

However, I will agree that Ninjutsu training seems a bit scatter-brained, with a little bit of everything stuffed within it.



> A better comparison IMO (I wasn't the one who stated the original comparison), would be when an MMA fighter, who trained at an 'MMA gym', goes to a boxing tournament and loses to a boxer. Doesn't mean the MMA fighter is bad, or that MMA is bad, but when you limit his other weapons/techniques, and none of the boxers, it gives the boxer a pretty big edge.



My issue with that comparison is that a MMA fighter will clearly be at a substantial disadvantage in that scenario to the point where the results would be completely different if they were operating in a more open ruleset.

In the case of Ninjutsu vs. Bjj, I'm rather confident that the results would have ended up being exactly the same even with a more open ruleset (minus weapons of course). It isn't the rules giving the Bjjer the advantage, it's the training model.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Now that is an interesting argument....
> 
> Let's expand this to general Japanese/Traditional Jiujitsu as a whole; Would you then argue that JJJ/TJJ throwing and grappling isn't close (effective-wise) to their descendant arts (Judo and Bjj)?


Besides the throwing skill, the "sport" environment can help you to develop the shaking force. If you have that, you can shake your opponent in such a way that you can cancel out his force during the initial stage.

IMO, this shaking force can only be developed through the "sport" environment. In other words, you need to let your opponent to move in anyway he wants to (not any pre-defined pattern), so you can test your shaking in all different kind of situations.


----------



## Martial D

pdg said:


> I know it's nothing new, and it's not restricted to bjj at all.
> 
> Doesn't make it reasonable.
> 
> When it's the pioneers of an art doing it, it's slightly more understandable (still not reasonable) - but a few generations later it gets excessively stupid.
> 
> Just like how your insistence that everyone would do the same if they could - it's not only unreasonable, it's wrong.
> 
> Not everyone has such a pathetic mindset.


I really don't get people like you.

In every single field of human activity there is innovation. We know when an innovation is a net possitive by testing it in it's contextual environment.

Whether that means you are beta testing new software, building a better mouse trap or training to defeat other human beings in some form of combat, it's all the same.

The best software wins the market share, the best mouse trap fills the shelves, while the less effective versions get swallowed into antiquity.

Yet we are supposed to exempt that last example, as if the market didn't exist, as if innovation isn't happening. This is an attitude that only yields stagnation, and such stagnation only further widens the gap between what is being innovated and what is being left behind.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Hanzou said:


> So as a form of JJJ, what's the problem with a Ninjutsu exponent entering a grappling tournament if they received proper training in their art? It certainly isn't akin to a wrestler entering a boxing tournament and not being allowed to wrestle right?
> 
> Here's some Ninja throws from the Bujinkan:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly legal in a grappling tournament.


Didn't see the video for some reason when I initially replied. Will watch it later, may change some of my replies based on it.


----------



## Hanzou

kempodisciple said:


> Didn't see the video for some reason when I initially replied. Will watch it later, may change some of my replies based on it.



Yeah, here's a list:

Nage Waza Bujinkan Black Belt Body Throws

I counted 32 throws (some of those are Judo throws).

Also here's some submissions:






In a grappling match, you can throw someone and submit them and win the match.


----------



## pdg

Martial D said:


> I really don't get people like you.
> 
> In every single field of human activity there is innovation. We know when an innovation is a net possitive by testing it in it's contextual environment.
> 
> Whether that means you are beta testing new software, building a better mouse trap or training to defeat other human beings in some form of combat, it's all the same.
> 
> The best software wins the market share, the best mouse trap fills the shelves, while the less effective versions get swallowed into antiquity.
> 
> Yet we are supposed to exempt that last example, as if the market didn't exist, as if innovation isn't happening. This is an attitude that only yields stagnation, and such stagnation only further widens the gap between what is being innovated and what is being left behind.



I can tell you really don't get me...

I have nothing against innovation.

I have nothing against development.

I have nothing against testing one thing against another to verify that the innovation and development has led to something "better".


What I don't support is loudly proclaiming that everything else is crap.

I can develop my application of tkd - I do a fair few things that nobody else in my club, or visitors from other clubs, have seen before (mainly stealing techs from other arts ). I test it in sparring against those people - sometimes it works better, sometimes it fails abysmally - but that's development for you.

What I don't do is then tell everyone else that what they're doing is wrong and a waste of time, because that's childish and stupid.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, here's a list:
> 
> Nage Waza Bujinkan Black Belt Body Throws
> 
> I counted 32 throws (some of those are Judo throws).
> 
> Also here's some submissions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a grappling match, you can throw someone and submit them and win the match.


Im waiting until i get off work to watch both of those and reply to your other comment. But probably wont happen until midnight tonight (est) or tomorrow, depending on how tired i am after work


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> I can tell you really don't get me...
> 
> I have nothing against innovation.
> 
> I have nothing against development.
> 
> I have nothing against testing one thing against another to verify that the innovation and development has led to something "better".
> 
> 
> What I don't support is loudly proclaiming that everything else is crap.
> 
> I can develop my application of tkd - I do a fair few things that nobody else in my club, or visitors from other clubs, have seen before (mainly stealing techs from other arts ). I test it in sparring against those people - sometimes it works better, sometimes it fails abysmally - but that's development for you.
> 
> What I don't do is then tell everyone else that what they're doing is wrong and a waste of time, because that's childish and stupid.



The medical profession does it. They loudly proclaim treatments that don't work. Don't work.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> The medical profession does it. They loudly proclaim treatments that don't work. Don't work.



In some cases they have the backing of things like evidence. They can actually cite verifiable reasons as to why they don't work instead of just using personal opinion.

The topic at hand is more like drug companies falsifying studies on a competitor's product, or making large donations to research establishments in return for favourable conclusions.

Or like the tobacco companies voluntarily funding "research" into smoking cessation options offered by other companies.

Or oil companies giving "unbiased" reports on alternative energy.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Unless Jow Ga has some grappling escapes I've never seen before, punching, kicking, and clawing isn't going to cut the mustard.


To be honest there are probably a lot of escapes that you have never seen before.  The problem with grappling is that a lot people think they have to be on the ground to do it. Which is why your statement includes "punching, kicking, and clawing"  Not once have I spoke about dealing with grappling attempts by an opponent by doing those things.  Not once in my sparring videos have you seen me try to punch, kick, or claw my way out of my opponents attempts to grab me."

  If you train not to be on the ground then you become good at not trying to be on the ground.  BJJ doesn't share that perspective.  BJJ embraces the ground, so if your mindset is already like that then you aren't even exploring how not to be on the ground because you are so focused on being on the ground.

To prove my point.  How much time does BJJ actually dedicated to not being on the ground and not finishing on the ground?  How much time do you spend training not to be on on ground? So it's only natural you wouldn't see that I see in my training.   I'm not to be mean but there's nothing silly about my comments.

I train not to be on the ground and I look at multiple perspectives on how not to do that.  I also look at multiple perspectives on the reality that if I have to go to the ground, then what comes next?  I address questions like:
1. How long do I want to be on the ground?
2. How long can I be on the ground before I'm in serious trouble?
3. Where are my windows of escape both before and after I'm on the ground?
4. What ways are the best ways for me to recover and get back to my feet?
5  How might my opponent try to keep me on the ground and what does he need to do in order to be successful with goal?
6.  Which stances put me more at risk for being on the ground?

This is just a small part of what my training includes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I think ground game is harder than the stand up game. If you are good in stand up game, you can relax and your opponent will have hard time to take you down. But if you are good in ground game, you can't relax as you do in the stand up game.


I tend to agree with that, though I wonder if that’s only because my stand-up game is stronger than my ground game.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, because the Gracie's are the only martial artists to ever claim that their arts are superior to all others.
> 
> I suppose you didn't read some of the descriptions of those Ninja videos I posted. Quite a few describe their ground techniques as something you won't find in "sports or UFC". Implying that what we do is just fun and games, while they do the "real stuff". They aren't the only ones either, so I have no issue being critical of traditional styles who claim they're more effective than styles with a competitive component.


Styles don’t make claims. Some people in styles do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Oh yes they would. Bruce Lee rolled up on a karate competition to promote his style while dissing traditional karate in the process. Would you consider Bruce Lee "uncivilized"?


Bruce Lee isn’t everyone.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> To be honest there are probably a lot of escapes that you have never seen before.  The problem with grappling is that a lot people think they have to be on the ground to do it. Which is why your statement includes "punching, kicking, and clawing"  Not once have I spoke about dealing with grappling attempts by an opponent by doing those things.  Not once in my sparring videos have you seen me try to punch, kick, or claw my way out of my opponents attempts to grab me."
> 
> If you train not to be on the ground then you become good at not trying to be on the ground.  BJJ doesn't share that perspective.  BJJ embraces the ground, so if your mindset is already like that then you aren't even exploring how not to be on the ground because you are so focused on being on the ground.
> 
> To prove my point.  How much time does BJJ actually dedicated to not being on the ground and not finishing on the ground?  How much time do you spend training not to be on on ground? So it's only natural you wouldn't see that I see in my training.   I'm not to be mean but there's nothing silly about my comments.
> 
> I train not to be on the ground and I look at multiple perspectives on how not to do that.  I also look at multiple perspectives on the reality that if I have to go to the ground, then what comes next?  I address questions like:
> 1. How long do I want to be on the ground?
> 2. How long can I be on the ground before I'm in serious trouble?
> 3. Where are my windows of escape both before and after I'm on the ground?
> 4. What ways are the best ways for me to recover and get back to my feet?
> 5  How might my opponent try to keep me on the ground and what does he need to do in order to be successful with goal?
> 6.  Which stances put me more at risk for being on the ground?
> 
> This is just a small part of what my training includes.



You clearly missed my point, so I'll say it again:

If Judoka, Bjjers, Samboists, MMAers, and Wrestlers can be taken down, so can you. The punching, kicking and clawing part happens when you're on your back trying to get away.

Silly territory is reached when you start believing that you have better take down defenses than D1 wrestlers and MMA fighters. I've seen both groups taken down by random drunk idiots. If you think Jow Ga gives you better tools than the best, that's your business.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Bruce Lee isn’t everyone.



But he's certainly a highly respected martial artist with a large following. That was my point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I assume Ninjutsu uses the self-defense approach and not the "sport" approach.
> 
> The issue is not the style but the mat time. If I wrestle 15 rounds daily and you only wrestle 2 times weekly, you won't have any chance to wrestle against me.
> 
> Many MA systems claim to have throwing in their system. But the throwing skill can only be developed through the "sport' environment. I don't believe the self-defense environment can be used to develop the throwing skill.


I’m not sure what you mean by those two environments, KFW.


----------



## JowGaWolf

wab25 said:


> So, if a BJJ school rolled up on a Boxing club, and got their tucuses handed to them in the boxing ring, would that lower your opinion of BJJ?


 Nope it won't lower his opinion of BJJ.  It's just how he is.




Tony Dismukes said:


> I learn more when I find someone (from whatever style) who can beat me up. I’m just selfish about my own personal growth that way.


 Looks like it's time for you to learn a lot of Jow Ga lol.. 


just kidding.. couldn't resist.  lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Now that is an interesting argument....
> 
> Let's expand this to general Japanese/Traditional Jiujitsu as a whole; Would you then argue that JJJ/TJJ throwing and grappling isn't close (effective-wise) to their descendant arts (Judo and Bjj)?


I’d argue their (people trained in “traditional” methods, without resistance) will commonly be much weaker in application. That’s not a problem with the style, though, but the method. Take the same training and add a generous measure of resistance, and application improves quickly and dramatically.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I’d argue their (people trained in “traditional” methods, without resistance) will commonly be much weaker in application. That’s not a problem with the style, though, but the method. Take the same training and add a generous measure of resistance, and application improves quickly and dramatically.



So you're saying that Ninjutsu could benefit from the "Kano" treatment?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Besides the throwing skill, the "sport" environment can help you to develop the shaking force. If you have that, you can shake your opponent in such a way that you can cancel out his force during the initial stage.
> 
> IMO, this shaking force can only be developed through the "sport" environment. In other words, you need to let your opponent to move in anyway he wants to (not any pre-defined pattern), so you can test your shaking in all different kind of situations.


So is lack of a predefined pattern what defines “sport environment “?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> But he's certainly a highly respected martial artist with a large following. That was my point.


As with many innovators, not everything he did was laudable.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> I’m not sure what you mean by those two environments, KFW.


I'm not sure if I understand him as well, but I may understand a little about not learning throwing skills in the self-defense environment.   I could be wrong in what I'm reading, but I would much rather be thrown in a sporting environment.  In a self defense environment things will most likely become dark. An example, would be in a sporting environment, I'm throwing you.  In a self-defense environment I'm may try to throw you on down on uneven surfaces, like curbs, stumps, rocks, etc. If I have the option to throw you down on the flat street or a curb, then I'll probably go for the curb.

In a real life situation that happened in Australia, I was put in a situation where my options were to push a possible attacker on the side walk near the grass or push a guy into on coming traffic.  I positioned myself so I could take advantage of the on coming traffic.  It was much better that I took that option than to let him position me  where he could take the option.

Now if I wanted to practice pushing someone in this self-defense environment, then it won't be long to either me or my training partner will get hit by a car, which makes it bad for training.  But in a self-defense environment.  I took it, and I would do it every time.  Not good for training that way unless it's a dead in street with no traffic, but at that point,  your no longer trying to time the push so that your opponent gets hit by a car.

I know to some this sounds horrible, but like I stated.  I rather have that option than for a soon to be attacker to have that option.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying that Ninjutsu could benefit from the "Kano" treatment?


I think most traditional styles could benefit from at least part of that. Even if the actual competition/sport of Judo hadn’t happened - if it had simply used the methods common to Judo without formal competition - it would likely have been a game changer. Traditional training probably worked better long ago when many proponents were warriors, so injury was more acceptable. With most MAists being hobbyists, it’s easy to get complacent with the sideways approach of traditional training. Resistive, non-cooperative cooperation helps a lot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not sure if I understand him as well, but I may understand a little about not learning throwing skills in the self-defense environment.   I could be wrong in what I'm reading, but I would much rather be thrown in a sporting environment.  In a self defense environment things will most likely become dark. An example, would be in a sporting environment, I'm throwing you.  In a self-defense environment I'm may try to throw you on down on uneven surfaces, like curbs, stumps, rocks, etc. If I have the option to throw you down on the flat street or a curb, then I'll probably go for the curb.
> 
> In a real life situation that happened in Australia, I was put in a situation where my options were to push a possible attacker on the side walk near the grass or push a guy into on coming traffic.  I positioned myself so I could take advantage of the on coming traffic.  It was much better that I took that option than to let him position me  where he could take the option.
> 
> Now if I wanted to practice pushing someone in this self-defense environment, then it won't be long to either me or my training partner will get hit by a car, which makes it bad for training.  But in a self-defense environment.  I took it, and I would do it every time.  Not good for training that way unless it's a dead in street with no traffic, but at that point,  your no longer trying to time the push so that your opponent gets hit by a car.
> 
> I know to some this sounds horrible, but like I stated.  I rather have that option than for a soon to be attacker to have that option.


I assumed he was differentiating the training environments.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I’m not sure what you mean by those two environments, KFW.


- The self-defense approach, you only train s set of pre-defined situations.
- The sport approach, you allow your opponent to do anything he wants to if the rule set is allowed.

If you ask your opponent, "Try to take me down within 2 minutes.", you are training with "sport" method.


----------



## Martial D

pdg said:


> I can tell you really don't get me...
> 
> I have nothing against innovation.
> 
> I have nothing against development.
> 
> I have nothing against testing one thing against another to verify that the innovation and development has led to something "better".
> 
> 
> What I don't support is loudly proclaiming that everything else is crap.
> 
> I can develop my application of tkd - I do a fair few things that nobody else in my club, or visitors from other clubs, have seen before (mainly stealing techs from other arts ). I test it in sparring against those people - sometimes it works better, sometimes it fails abysmally - but that's development for you.
> 
> What I don't do is then tell everyone else that what they're doing is wrong and a waste of time, because that's childish and stupid.


But nobody is doing that. I know that you think Hanzou is, but I read all the same threads as you do and I've yet to see it.

Anyway, what I was getting at was your seeming disdain and disgust for the concept of challenge matches. Myself, I'm very much in favour of the put up or shut up mentality. Without it all we are doing here is playing dressup and doing traditional Asian dancing.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Besides the throwing skill, the "sport" environment can help you to develop the shaking force. If you have that, you can shake your opponent in such a way that you can cancel out his force during the initial stage.
> 
> IMO, this shaking force can only be developed through the "sport" environment. In other words, you need to let your opponent to move in anyway he wants to (not any pre-defined pattern), so you can test your shaking in all different kind of situations.


If that's you in the video.  comedy effort from your student (not in a bad way).  You have your hands on your student which means that you had a good read on intention through his movement lol.  Did he ever pick that up.  If I were going for your legs, I would definitely not want you to be able to sense my movement like that lol.   I understand that it was only training, but it didn't seem like he was trying to read your intent in the same way.  

Or were you just demonstrating a concept to him so he could understand?  Sometimes it's difficult to tell from short video clips


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> In some cases they have the backing of things like evidence. They can actually cite verifiable reasons as to why they don't work instead of just using personal opinion.
> 
> The topic at hand is more like drug companies falsifying studies on a competitor's product, or making large donations to research establishments in return for favourable conclusions.
> 
> Or like the tobacco companies voluntarily funding "research" into smoking cessation options offered by other companies.
> 
> Or oil companies giving "unbiased" reports on alternative energy.



So it it the evidence not the attitude.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> I tend to agree with that, though I wonder if that’s only because my stand-up game is stronger than my ground game.


You probably have a better understanding of the stand up game because grab people while they are standing and you utilize the stand up game.  Standing up requires balance so you probably exploit that as well to.   Most people don't train balance nor movement of structure which gives you a really good advantage as far as stand up grappling goes.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - The self-defense approach, you only train s set of pre-defined situations.
> - The sport approach, you allow your opponent to do anything he wants to if the rule set is allowed.
> 
> If you ask your opponent, "Try to take me down within 2 minutes.", you are training with "sport" method.


 Thanks for clearing that up.  I was way off.

I would have to disagree with you on that one.  If anything a self-defense situation is not very pre-defined.  The reason I say this is because anything goes in a fight.  In sports approach, you have limitations created by rules.   In self-defense, if I see a bottle near my attacker I have to start wondering if I need to make sure he doesn't have access to it, or do I take a chance that he won't try to use it.    Something as simple as a fork can screw up any "pre-defined" situation.

I still have yet to see any "pre-defined" self-defense training to stab someone with a fork.  





However, boxers train to deal with the "pre-defined" rule set of punch only.  Self-defense flows like the ocean on the surface it looks calm and peaceful, but underneath there could be a lot of things that are unexpected.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> If that's you in the video.  comedy effort from your student (not in a bad way).  You have your hands on your student which means that you had a good read on intention through his movement lol.  Did he ever pick that up.  If I were going for your legs, I would definitely not want you to be able to sense my movement like that lol.   I understand that it was only training, but it didn't seem like he was trying to read your intent in the same way.
> 
> Or were you just demonstrating a concept to him so he could understand?  Sometimes it's difficult to tell from short video clips


That's just a record for one principle "shaking". It was not competition. The SC blue belt test requires to test 30 different principles. This kind of short clip just help him to remember the class content.

That's how the jacket wrestling is all about. You can read your opponent. Your opponent can also read you. I told my students that when they attack, they have to break apart their opponent's grips first. This way, their opponent cannot read their intention. Both persons grab on each other and dance is not a good idea.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - The self-defense approach, you only train s set of pre-defined situations.
> - The sport approach, you allow your opponent to do anything he wants to if the rule set is allowed.
> 
> If you ask your opponent, "Try to take me down within 2 minutes.", you are training with "sport" method.


I’ve never seen what you describe in self-defense-oriented schools, even those I’d describe as overly cooperative.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

gpseymour said:


> I’ve never seen what you describe in self-defense-oriented schools, even those I’d describe as overly cooperative.


A while ago when I was looking at new schools, I saw it a bit. Not necessarily _only_ that, but most of it was "these are the SD techniques", and there would be no chaining techniques, because there was no need to do so. I saw this moreso in hybrid systems then in grappling oriented schools. And it may have been the result of 1-2 trial classes.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I’ve never seen what you describe in self-defense-oriented schools, even those I’d describe as overly cooperative.








By the way will I be seen as one of those nasty mmaers of I admit I am really starting to dislike this club.


----------



## pdg

Martial D said:


> But nobody is doing that. I know that you think Hanzou is, but I read all the same threads as you do and I've yet to see it.
> 
> Anyway, what I was getting at was your seeming disdain and disgust for the concept of challenge matches. Myself, I'm very much in favour of the put up or shut up mentality. Without it all we are doing here is playing dressup and doing traditional Asian dancing.



A challenge match is fine - one practitioner vs. another. No problems there. Open testing and possibly mutual development.

But, there are ways to issue a challenge.

A school invasion (which was partly what started this discussion) isn't a challenge match - it's an attack and simply not acceptable.

And spending a load of time posturing and antagonising another is nothing more than trying to introduce emotion in the hope that it's a distraction - the same reason the prefight interviews always have the contestants insisting they're going to win, it's a psychological tactic.

So unless you're going to say that using that sort of tactic is a fundamental part of the art, it really doesn't have much place in a challenge and actually detracts from proving efficacy. If you can't win unless you mentally affect your opponent, it's not a win anyway.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> By the way will I be seen as one of those nasty mmaers of I admit I am really starting to dislike this club.


It's tough for me to tell...either those people are being way way too compliant, or they are a group of superpowers who have superstrength but missed the superdurability and grip that normally go along with it. I'm betting it's the second.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

In sport, if you have taken 20 guys down in the past and nobody has ever taken you down before, the chance that you think you can take the 21th guy down will be high. That's your confidence. You may say, "I have 20-0 under my belt."

In SD, I don't know how to measure your ability and how to develop that kind of confidence.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> By the way will I be seen as one of those nasty mmaers of I admit I am really starting to dislike this club.



What sort of testing is that supposed to represent?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> If Judoka, Bjjers, Samboists, MMAers, and Wrestlers can be taken down, so can you.


 Not sure why you even mentioned this.  When I've clearly have not stated that I can't be taken down.    The difference between Judoka, Bjjers, Samboists, MMAers, and Wrestlers is that they embrace fighting on the ground so they don't mind being on the ground.  I don't share that perspective.  I have no interest on being on the ground and this is something you cannot say about the systems that you just mentioned.

The only acceptable ground fighting for me is for me to be there for a second and then recover to my feet ASAP.  The best way I can show this difference is to put a comparison video of how other Jow Ga students were put on their backs compared to me sparring against the same people.  If I showed you this video you would be able to clearly see how unwilling I am to play within their strengths.  My perspective does not allow me to take those same risks that those other styles take.


----------



## JowGaWolf

kempodisciple said:


> A while ago when I was looking at new schools, I saw it a bit. Not necessarily _only_ that, but most of it was "these are the SD techniques", and there would be no chaining techniques, because there was no need to do so. I saw this moreso in hybrid systems then in grappling oriented schools. And it may have been the result of 1-2 trial classes.


If that's what Kung Fu wang was talking about then yep.  I can agree with that.  I guess I was looking at it from my perspective of self-defense and how I used to train students.  When I was an instructor,  I would always train students to take advantage of the opportunity that present's itself.  The other instructor was really big on having a set goal to strike in a particular place.  

As a result of his desire to hit someone in the head, he often over looked other opportunities and risks.  I tend to look at self-defense the same way.  I want to maximize as many opportunities as I can.  

I didn't think about the self-defense school that train pre-defined responses that cause people to wait for a specific threat instead of being more free flowing and taking the opportunity to avoid threats.  This may be why some women who take self-defense still get attacked and why we hear stories about women who were able to fight off attackers thanks to a self-defense class.  They probably missed out on opportunities to avoid the threat and only reacted when that pre-defined attack came into play.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> By the way will I be seen as one of those nasty mmaers of I admit I am really starting to dislike this club.





pdg said:


> What sort of testing is that supposed to represent?



Actually, I think I might just be about to double standard the crap out of myself.

Brace yourself.

Here it comes.

Any time now.

If that is representative of the style, I'm not sure I count it as a style at all - so bashing it may very well not constitute style bashing.



I feel dirty now, but not entirely in a bad way...


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> By the way will I be seen as one of those nasty mmaers of I admit I am really starting to dislike this club.


...what the f....


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Not sure why you even mentioned this.  When I've clearly have not stated that I can't be taken down.    The difference between Judoka, Bjjers, Samboists, MMAers, and Wrestlers is that they embrace fighting on the ground so they don't mind being on the ground.  I don't share that perspective.  I have no interest on being on the ground and this is something you cannot say about the systems that you just mentioned.
> 
> The only acceptable ground fighting for me is for me to be there for a second and then recover to my feet ASAP.  The best way I can show this difference is to put a comparison video of how other Jow Ga students were put on their backs compared to me sparring against the same people.  If I showed you this video you would be able to clearly see how unwilling I am to play within their strengths.  My perspective does not allow me to take those same risks that those other styles take.


You say this as if it's a choice. The fact is, if you haven't trained in a grappling art, you are going down to the ground the second someone that has closes their grip around any part of you.

It's honestly like sorcery.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> You say this as if it's a choice.


Yes it is a choice.   I can choose where i will try to fight the fight and choose to do everything I can to avoid another's strength.  That's always a choice.  The thing that isn't a choice is the frequency of success as it varies with each opponent.  There is no guarantee that I will go down.  There is only a guarantee that I will do what I can not to.

What gets me is that there is this belief that it is impossible to avoid going to the ground and that being put on the ground is 100% guaranteed.  To me that is the strangest line of thought.   

What makes you think you don't have a choice?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> You have your hands on your student which means that you had a good read on intention through his movement lol.


In SC, you want to grab on your opponent but you don't want your opponent to grab you. Unfortunately most of the time both you and your opponent can have grips on each other at the same time. The dancing game then start from there.

To avoid that, you have to "tear" apart your opponent's grips. After tearing, you will end with one grip on your opponent but your opponent has no grip on you, you can then move in and attack.

This is why the "tearing" principle can be used to counter the "shaking" principle. If you have no grips (or only 1 grip) on me, you can't shake me.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying that Ninjutsu could benefit from the "Kano" treatment?


I’d certainly say it. I spent about 7-8 years training in the Bujinkan and my ability to apply the techniques in a real fight was not high. It’s been probably around 25 years since I was seriously involved in the art, but I could probably make much more of it work effectively now due to the my experience in live, resisted training. My BJJ has made my “ninjutsu” (really Bujinkan Taijutsu) much better, and my Bujinkan experience has had some benefits for my Jiu-jitsu.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JowGaWolf said:


> Looks like it's time for you to learn a lot of Jow Ga lol..


My mom lives in Macon and I hope that some day I can schedule some time to stop in Atlanta and get a workout in with you when I’m driving to visit her.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> What makes you think you don't have a choice?


I think you do have a choice. One of my senior SC brothers is 83 years old now. When he was 45, he announced to the public that if anybody could just take him down once, he would give that person a SC black belt. In the past 38 years, nobody had ever received a black belt from him that way.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JowGaWolf said:


> The difference between Judoka, Bjjers, Samboists, MMAers, and Wrestlers is that they embrace fighting on the ground so they don't mind being on the ground. I don't share that perspective. I have no interest on being on the ground and this is something you cannot say about the systems that you just mentioned.
> 
> The only acceptable ground fighting for me is for me to be there for a second and then recover to my feet ASAP.



You have a point regarding many BJJers. However judoka, wrestlers, and samboists can lose a match by being taken down. They only want to be on the ground if they’re the ones performing the takedown and landing on top. They will fight very hard to avoid takedowns and since they’re competing against opponents who are very good at takedowns they get very good at takedown defense. In addition, wrestlers train very hard to get to their feet quickly if they are taken down. They compete against opponents who are good at holding people down so they get skilled  at that too. (We do have good methods for regaining the feet in BJJ as well, but we typically don’t train to do it with the same urgency as wrestlers. We have more emphasis on getting up safely rather than quickly.)


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> What sort of testing is that supposed to represent?



My patience.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Not sure why you even mentioned this.  When I've clearly have not stated that I can't be taken down.    The difference between Judoka, Bjjers, Samboists, MMAers, and Wrestlers is that they embrace fighting on the ground so they don't mind being on the ground.  I don't share that perspective.  I have no interest on being on the ground and this is something you cannot say about the systems that you just mentioned.



False. Only Bjjers embrace being on the ground. Everyone else learns tools to get off the ground as fast as possible, or cross train with Bjjers and also embrace fighting on the ground. The more salient point is that all those guys learn how to fight off of the ground utilizing sound grappling principles. No offense, but I doubt those principles exist in Jowga.



> The only acceptable ground fighting for me is for me to be there for a second and then recover to my feet ASAP.  The best way I can show this difference is to put a comparison video of how other Jow Ga students were put on their backs compared to me sparring against the same people.  If I showed you this video you would be able to clearly see how unwilling I am to play within their strengths.  My perspective does not allow me to take those same risks that those other styles take.



Yeah but here's the thing; Skilled grapplers will keep you on the ground and not allow you to escape. They will apply pressure from multiple angles, and force you to make a wrong move to advance their position. Take it from someone who has spent many mat hours attempting to escape wrestling and Judo holds and pins from guys who are a lot heavier and stronger than me; it isn't easy even if you're trained. Every wrong move you make will be capitalized on and will only make your situation worse. Every bit of wasted energy only makes it harder for you to defend yourself, and the fact that you're trying to get to your feet as rapidly as possible with no training is pretty much a fast way to screw yourself over. Put your arm up the wrong way? Armbar or Shoulder lock. Move your head away from top pressure? Choke. Turn to your side to avoid getting socked in the face? Choke, Arm lock, neck crank, etc.

You want to really avoid the ground? Embrace it and cross-train in Bjj. Unlike your old Kung Fu school, we won't toss you out because you have a fighting spirit.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In SC, you want to grab on your opponent but you don't want your opponent to grab you. Unfortunately most of the time both you and your opponent can have grips on each other at the same time. The dancing game then start from there.
> 
> To avoid that, you have to "tear" apart your opponent's grips. After tearing, you will end with one grip on your opponent but your opponent has no grip on you, you can then move in and attack.
> 
> This is why the "tearing" principle can be used to counter the "shaking" principle. If you have no grips (or only 1 grip) on me, you can't shake me.


 Jow Ga has quite a few techniques that do the same thing.  They focus on "attacking the grip" not by striking the grip but "tearing" it much of it is design to work before the grip is securely locked.

Ironically the turning that you show is really good for releasing the grips but one has to be aware of the person quick releasing and re-establishing the grip from the side.  There is a similar technique to the one you are showing in Jow Ga. Your Gripping hand turns into a striking hand and the back hand deals with an incoming  grab attempt or punch.  It looks similar to this but the hand isn't that high, the shoulders aren't squared off, and it's an open hand technique.  It follows a similar path as what you are showing but both hands are open in the event there is an opportunity to grab before, during , or after the strike.    I've used it to counter strikes before, maybe one day I'll get a chance to use it in the context of grappling.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes it is a choice.   I can choose where i will try to fight the fight and choose to do everything I can to avoid another's strength.  That's always a choice.  The thing that isn't a choice is the frequency of success as it varies with each opponent.  There is no guarantee that I will go down.  There is only a guarantee that I will do what I can not to.
> 
> What gets me is that there is this belief that it is impossible to avoid going to the ground and that being put on the ground is 100% guaranteed.  To me that is the strangest line of thought.
> 
> What makes you think you don't have a choice?



There is a method that gets you up rather than defending off your back.

But it is still a very technical game plan.

I think the issue is you keep just saying stand up. Which is not the same discussion.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Everyone else learns tools to get off the ground as fast as possible, or cross train with Bjjers and also embrace fighting on the ground.


 I'm not "everyone else."   My approach is different from what you are used to seeing.



Hanzou said:


> No offense, but I doubt those principles exist in Jowga.


I've already shown videos of me using the principles that I mentioned, using Jow Ga techniques, so there's not need for me to debate what's in Jow Ga.  And I'm not offended.  You don't train Jow Ga and you definitely don't train Jow Ga with me so there's no way you can know this.  How many Jow Ga practitioners have you seen fight like me?



Hanzou said:


> Every wrong move you make will be capitalized on and will only make your situation worse.


What makes you think that this only applies to them and not to me?  If they make a wrong move with me, will I not capitalize on it?  This is basic fighting logic.  If you screw  up the your opponent will make you pay.  This is not a ground fighting only logic.



Hanzou said:


> and the fact that you're trying to get to your feet as rapidly as possible with no training is pretty much a fast way to screw yourself over.


This is not a way to screw yourself over.  "Getting back to your feet as fast as possible" is not the same as "getting back to your feet right away."

If you have trained with me then you would know this.  Any of my students I have train in recovering from the ground can tell you that I have never told them to get to their feet right away.  As a matter of fact I have already shown a video of me doing such a drill.  A lot of Kung Fu practitioners misunderstand the concept of getting back on their feet as soon as possible.  Many make the assumption that it means get back on their feet right away.  The reality is that depending on how you fall or land, other techniques may need to be used before getting up.  Getting up right away puts a person at risk for being struck while getting up.  In terms of grappling, it may mean you are attacked while in a position that prevents you from gaining any structure to deal with the attack. 



Hanzou said:


> You want to really avoid the ground? Embrace it and cross-train in Bjj. Unlike your old Kung Fu school, we won't toss you out because you have a fighting spirit.


If I do BJJ then I'm not doing Jow Ga.  I have expressed many times that my goal is to be a good representation of Jow Ga Kung Fu so if I'm going to find or use a solution then it's going to have to be within the system.  Jow Ga is made of 3 different systems which gives me a lot to work with in terms of finding a solution. 

Hopefully I'll get a chance to spar with some of the people from Martial Talk and they can give you  their opinion about my abilities and describe what it's like.  Not that it's going to change how you are.. lol.  I'll be better off trying to grow a tree that creates  money.    As far as me being kicked out because of my fighting spirit.  To be honest, if you have to be kicked out, that's a pretty cool reason to be kicked out.   Hey you do kung fu, but we have to kick you out because you focus on fighting too much and not the traditional aspects / rituals.  Being the way MMA has been wiping up "kung fu Masters,"  I would have to say I'm ahead of the game lol. 

I can't do it at the moment as I have some other things in the works, but eventually I'll find some cool BJJ guys to spar with and I'll record that.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I think the issue is you keep just saying stand up. Which is not the same discussion.


I didn't think I had to go into detail like that with you guys.  I'm already wordy lol.   Try explaining a Jow Ga technique in a way that someone can visualize what you are talking about.  It could get very long and wordy, especially with me.

For me the concept of standing up does not mean "Stand up right away"  It is a process and like every process there are windows of opportunity that you have to look for.  Some times you can get back if you opponent delays his attack instead of press.   Other times you have to create an opening because your opponent is waiting for you when you are at your most vulnerable which is the transition stage (the point between starting to get off the ground and gaining a solid stance).  To me all of this is the process of standing up as soon as possible, but it's not the same as "standing up right away."   Don't be on the ground and try to get up right way, because at that point you may actually be standing up before it's actually possible to stand up.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> If I do BJJ then I'm not doing Jow Ga.


Many years ago, I would feel the same way as you do today. Today, I'm interested in making my "head lock" to tap out my opponent on the ground. I'll need to test it against more true BJJ guys.

SC + BJJ > SC
SC + BJJ > BJJ.



JowGaWolf said:


> "Stand up right away" .


Do you train something similar to the following?

1. Turn side way.
2. Bend lower leg as close as to your hip as possible.
3. Drop front foot on the ground with toes facing forward.
4. Push both hands on the ground.

When I was young, I had many fancy ways to get back up. I didn't even need to use my hands to push on the ground. Today, my body don't feel like a fish any more.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> So it it the evidence not the attitude.



It's a bit of both, but the emphasis is on attitude.

Rubbishing what someone else does is not evidence that what you do is better.

Using somebody else's performance isn't really evidence of your own, it's circumstantial at best.

So someone who was a pioneer of an art beat some people and won some stuff - that in no way provides evidence of the system being better or that everyone who practices it is capable of the same level of performance.

There was that video posted recently of a mediocre application of boxing absolutely toying with a bunch of BJJers - if the sentiment of "grappling fundamentally beats all" was true, it would be impossible for that video to exist.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I can't do it at the moment as I have some other things in the works, but eventually I'll find some cool BJJ guys to spar with and I'll record that.



Good. The sooner you get out of silly territory the better.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> There was that video posted recently of a mediocre application of boxing absolutely toying with a bunch of BJJers - if the sentiment of "grappling fundamentally beats all" was true, it would be impossible for that video to exist.



Yeah, that video doesn't exist. What actually exists is a Bjj upper belt with a boxing background toying with less experienced students.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many years ago, I would feel the same way as you do today. Today, I'm interested in making my "head lock" to tap out my opponent on the ground. I'll need to test it against more true BJJ guys.
> 
> SC + BJJ > SC
> SC + BJJ > BJJ.


The thing is that I'm not interested in the the JG + BJJ .> JG 
I'm not looking for a greater than or equal to equation.   This is what I'm seeking.
If BJ does  Technique 1 then what is the correct JG response to BJJ Technique 1.
  A. Is it preventive measures?
  B. Is it escape measures?
  C. Is it attack measures?
  D. Is it defense measures?
  E. Is it a combination of A-D or a  any other combination such as A and B?
  F. Does the appropriate measure even exist? Does Hung Gar have an answer? Does Choy Ga have an answer?  Does the Shaolin system have an answer?

If I just throw my hands up and make learning BJJ the answer,  then I will never take the time to explore the Jow Ga system to that level of understanding. If I lose against BJJ then I get back up, analyze what I'm doing, analyze what my BJJ opponent is doing and figure it out.  This is the process that I always take with learning Jow Ga regardless of the system I'm fighting against. So many times I see people just abandon their system and never take the time to figure out the difficult parts.  For me I just don't want to be that way.

Don't get me wrong I don't have any problem with learning some BJJ stuff.   But in terms of Jow Ga.   My equation will always be  Jow Ga is sometimes greater, sometimes equal, and sometimes less than my opponent's skill level in his system.   

By the way.  SC + BJJ  > SC is not always true.  If you aren't good at BJJ vs SC then you'll lose against SC.   If you are better at SC vs SC then you'll win even if you don't know SC.   Not every person who takes BJJ is good against strikers.  A person who does BJJ may not have enough skill to use it against a striker..  

This is also true with Jow Ga.  the higher my Jow Ga skill level the better my chance will be to win with Jow Ga.


----------



## dunc

Hanzou said:


> So as a form of JJJ, what's the problem with a Ninjutsu exponent entering a grappling tournament if they received proper training in their art? It certainly isn't akin to a wrestler entering a boxing tournament and not being allowed to wrestle right?
> 
> Here's some Ninja throws from the Bujinkan:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly legal in a grappling tournament.



The Bujinkan has a good amount of standing grappling that could translate into a tournament context

Broadly speaking there are three issues with this:
1 - Whilst many of the throws, takedowns are legal, the set ups are generally "out of context" for a tournament. For example sweeps are exchanged for kicks, strikes are used to break balance for a takedown, the groin and the throat are major targets which change your core grappling posture and so on
2 - Most Bujinkan dojos don't teach/study the technical adjustments needed for a competition
3 - Most Bujinkan dojos don't spar so they don't learn how to deal with resistance 

Most people haven't figured out how to cross the divide between efficiency for self defence and pressure training for competition/randori. Instead preferring the comfort of sitting firmly in one camp vs the other



Tony Dismukes said:


> I’d certainly say it. I spent about 7-8 years training in the Bujinkan and my ability to apply the techniques in a real fight was not high. It’s been probably around 25 years since I was seriously involved in the art, but I could probably make much more of it work effectively now due to the my experience in live, resisted training. My BJJ has made my “ninjutsu” (really Bujinkan Taijutsu) much better, and my Bujinkan experience has had some benefits for my Jiu-jitsu.



Kano, who probably understood the dichotomy above, advocated training in both randori and JJJ (or self defence techniques). Over time Judo and BJJ have gravitated towards the randori side of things and the self defence techniques have suffered somewhat as a result. TBH I think a more balanced approach may make sense if folks are advocating BJJ as a good self defence option (which many are) - but this is probably off topic


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes it is a choice.   I can choose where i will try to fight the fight and choose to do everything I can to avoid another's strength.  That's always a choice.  The thing that isn't a choice is the frequency of success as it varies with each opponent.  There is no guarantee that I will go down.  There is only a guarantee that I will do what I can not to.
> 
> What gets me is that there is this belief that it is impossible to avoid going to the ground and that being put on the ground is 100% guaranteed.  To me that is the strangest line of thought.
> 
> What makes you think you don't have a choice?


You do have a choice..sort of..to not get grabbed. But, that's not always your choice to make either.

Do you think a completely untrained striker could stand in front of you and stuff all your strikes?

Probably not, and I don't either. That's why it's a skill set. To add to this grappling skills are far less intuitive than striking skills, meaning an untrained grappler is far less likely to instictively react correctly to a double leg(underhook, sprawl) than to an overhand(duck!).

This all becomes self evident on day one of training with skillful grapplers. I say all of this as a guy that is 80% striker 20% grappler with a CMA base.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> The thing is that I'm not interested in the the JG + BJJ .> JG
> I'm not looking for a greater than or equal to equation.   This is what I'm seeking.
> If BJ does  Technique 1 then what is the correct JG response to BJJ Technique 1.
> A. Is it preventive measures?
> B. Is it escape measures?
> C. Is it attack measures?
> D. Is it defense measures?
> E. Is it a combination of A-D or a  any other combination such as A and B?
> F. Does the appropriate measure even exist? Does Hung Gar have an answer? Does Choy Ga have an answer?  Does the Shaolin system have an answer?
> 
> If I just throw my hands up and make learning BJJ the answer,  then I will never take the time to explore the Jow Ga system to that level of understanding. If I lose against BJJ then I get back up, analyze what I'm doing, analyze what my BJJ opponent is doing and figure it out.  This is the process that I always take with learning Jow Ga regardless of the system I'm fighting against. So many times I see people just abandon their system and never take the time to figure out the difficult parts.  For me I just don't want to be that way.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I don't have any problem with learning some BJJ stuff.   But in terms of Jow Ga.   My equation will always be  Jow Ga is sometimes greater, sometimes equal, and sometimes less than my opponent's skill level in his system.
> 
> By the way.  SC + BJJ  > SC is not always true.  If you aren't good at BJJ vs SC then you'll lose against SC.   If you are better at SC vs SC then you'll win even if you don't know SC.   Not every person who takes BJJ is good against strikers.  A person who does BJJ may not have enough skill to use it against a striker..
> 
> This is also true with Jow Ga.  the higher my Jow Ga skill level the better my chance will be to win with Jow Ga.


I dunno man. I understand and can apply WC things because of the perspective offered by MMA training. Sometimes you need to take your toe off the line to step forward.


----------



## wab25

JowGaWolf said:


> If I just throw my hands up and make learning BJJ the answer, then I will never take the time to explore the Jow Ga system to that level of understanding. If I lose against BJJ then I get back up, analyze what I'm doing, analyze what my BJJ opponent is doing and figure it out. This is the process that I always take with learning Jow Ga regardless of the system I'm fighting against. So many times I see people just abandon their system and never take the time to figure out the difficult parts. For me I just don't want to be that way.


I think we should all be training this way. It shouldn't be about which system is better, but who understands their own system better. I think the lack of this process taking place has lead to the idea that Karate or TKD or Kung Fu having huge holes in their system. I don't believe most of the holes we see in these traditional arts are holes in the arts, but rather holes in the users understanding of the art that they study. It leads to ideas that a down block is a down block... and nothing else. This type of thinking gets people stuck, and they miss whole portions of the art. Then, they get promoted and start teaching people, never knowing about holes they introduced to their art. When you don't put in the time to figure out how an art deals with different tactics, and different strategies... I don't believe you are truly studying that art.

I think practitioners of all arts should be doing this. Adding resistance to your training is one step, the next step is experiencing that resistance from people who train other arts. And if the guy from the other art can't hand you your tucus on a silver platter... find a better practitioner of that art. You won't look at what you are doing close enough, unless someone trounces you pretty good. That sends you back to the drawing board to really analyze what happened, why and how your art may deal with that strategy.

Its not about disrespecting arts. Its not about proving which art is better. Its about really understanding your art, and respecting other arts enough work together, so that both practitioners can go back to their drawing boards and come out better martial artists for it, both with a better understanding of their own art.


----------



## Martial D

wab25 said:


> I think we should all be training this way. It shouldn't be about which system is better, but who understands their own system better. I think the lack of this process taking place has lead to the idea that Karate or TKD or Kung Fu having huge holes in their system. I don't believe most of the holes we see in these traditional arts are holes in the arts, but rather holes in the users understanding of the art that they study. It leads to ideas that a down block is a down block... and nothing else. This type of thinking gets people stuck, and they miss whole portions of the art. Then, they get promoted and start teaching people, never knowing about holes they introduced to their art. When you don't put in the time to figure out how an art deals with different tactics, and different strategies... I don't believe you are truly studying that art.
> 
> I think practitioners of all arts should be doing this. Adding resistance to your training is one step, the next step is experiencing that resistance from people who train other arts. And if the guy from the other art can't hand you your tucus on a silver platter... find a better practitioner of that art. You won't look at what you are doing close enough, unless someone trounces you pretty good. That sends you back to the drawing board to really analyze what happened, why and how your art may deal with that strategy.
> 
> Its not about disrespecting arts. Its not about proving which art is better. Its about really understanding your art, and respecting other arts enough work together, so that both practitioners can go back to their drawing boards and come out better martial artists for it, both with a better understanding of their own art.


I think there is a point where attachment to style becomes a roadblock. There comes a point where you have to ask yourself why you train. Is it to be the best you can be _at a style_, or do you want to be the best you can be?


----------



## wab25

Martial D said:


> I think there is a point where attachment to style becomes a roadblock. There comes a point where you have to ask yourself why you train. Is it to be the best you can be _at a style_, or do you want to be the best you can be?


I don't really understand what you are going for here... Ok sure, I want to be the best I can be, so I'll abandon all other arts and study BJJ cause its the best. Except that to fully understand BJJ, you have to go through this same process. There are plenty of examples of accomplished BJJ guys getting beat badly when they compete in more open rule sets. There are also examples of BJJ guys learning how BJJ handles these other strategies, and doing much better.

The goal should always be to become the best you can. The different arts are tools to use in that journey. For whatever reason, we gravitate towards different arts and sometimes we change arts. Nothing wrong with that at all. But whatever art or arts you are studying, BJJ included, you miss a lot if you don't spar/roll/randori with resistance. You will also miss a lot if you don't take your art to other arts and learn how your art deals with those other strategies. If you don't find that out, you are not gaining a full understanding of the art you are studying, no matter which art it is. 

If you choose to study an art, do you want to study all of the art or only part of it? Different answers for different people, will help them be the best that they can be. Remember, we don't all have the same definition of best. 

Anyone else feel like joining the army now?


----------



## Martial D

wab25 said:


> I don't really understand what you are going for here... Ok sure, I want to be the best I can be, so I'll abandon all other arts and study BJJ cause its the best.



I don't think anyone is making the argument that _BJJ is the best. _I would argue it provides useful skills from certain ranges, and skills to help you achieve, maintain, or even avoid those ranges, that most other styles do not.  BJJ is not the only style to provide these solutions, but it is surely the most comprehensive(one stop shop)

 If you want to be a complete martial artist you are going to want to be competent at all ranges of fighting. Ignoring certain ranges entirely doesn't make any sense. 



> The goal should always be to become the best you can. The different arts are tools to use in that journey. For whatever reason, we gravitate towards different arts and sometimes we change arts. Nothing wrong with that at all. But whatever art or arts you are studying, BJJ included, you miss a lot if you don't spar/roll/randori with resistance. You will also miss a lot if you don't take your art to other arts and learn how your art deals with those other strategies. If you don't find that out, you are not gaining a full understanding of the art you are studying, no matter which art it is.


You took the words right out of my mouth.


> If you choose to study an art, do you want to study all of the art or only part of it? Different answers for different people, will help them be the best that they can be. Remember, we don't all have the same definition of best.


It depends if you want to be the best you can at a style, or the best martial artist you can be.


----------



## Hanzou

dunc said:


> The Bujinkan has a good amount of standing grappling that could translate into a tournament context
> 
> Broadly speaking there are three issues with this:
> 1 - Whilst many of the throws, takedowns are legal, the set ups are generally "out of context" for a tournament. For example sweeps are exchanged for kicks, strikes are used to break balance for a takedown, the groin and the throat are major targets which change your core grappling posture and so on
> 2 - Most Bujinkan dojos don't teach/study the technical adjustments needed for a competition
> 3 - Most Bujinkan dojos don't spar so they don't learn how to deal with resistance
> 
> Most people haven't figured out how to cross the divide between efficiency for self defence and pressure training for competition/randori. Instead preferring the comfort of sitting firmly in one camp vs the other



According to the Bujinkan, there's over 30 throws.
Here is also some Bujinkan newaza:














While I certainly understand they have some hang-ups with making things more "deadly" than necessary, it shouldn't take much to modify a throw or a pin to make it comply to a ruleset if you have the base skill to pull it off in the first place.

I think the issue is that they don't have the skill in the first place.


----------



## dunc

Hanzou said:


> According to the Bujinkan, there's over 30 throws.
> Here is also some Bujinkan newaza:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I certainly understand they have some hang-ups with making things more "deadly" than necessary, it shouldn't take much to modify a throw or a pin to make it comply to a ruleset if you have the base skill to pull it off in the first place.
> 
> I think the issue is that they don't have the skill in the first place.



Hi
Did you read my post that you quoted?
Just checking as maybe I worded it badly & folks missed the points made or some other misunderstanding


----------



## Hanzou

dunc said:


> Hi
> Did you read my post that you quoted?
> Just checking as maybe I worded it badly & folks missed the points made or some other misunderstanding



Yes. I was pointing out that those limitations you listed should be easily overcame by rather simple modifications. I simply don't buy the notion that a competent martial artist can't adjust their skill set based on the situation at hand.


----------



## dunc

Ahhh OK - thanks

Surely doing so would take work 'though?


----------



## Hanzou

dunc said:


> Ahhh OK - thanks
> 
> Surely doing so would take work 'though?



Certainly. However if you wish to compete utilizing Ninjutsu such work should be expected and not be an insurmountable task.

In Bjj, you have to take competition classes to prepare yourself for competition. In those classes several Bjj techniques are modified, and if it is nogi, those techniques are modified even further.


----------



## dunc

Sure, but BJJ is very competition oriented so the adjustment from ordinary training to a competition is relatively straightforward

For someone who's spent all their mat time doing something quite different the adjustment will be a bigger one & require more work


----------



## dunc

Found these with a little googling











Of course there's always Steve Jennum...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> According to the Bujinkan, there's over 30 throws.


How does Bujinkan define those 30 throws?

In SC, there are 61 different categories throws. A total over 230 throws.

1. sweep - 35 throws.
2. break - 32 throws.
3. ...


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Good. The sooner you get out of silly territory the better.


I'm going to screen shot this quote and use it to fuel my success. That way any Biased comment that you make about BJJ is going to be answered with this video.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> You do have a choice..sort of..to not get grabbed. But, that's not always your choice to make either.
> 
> Do you think a completely untrained striker could stand in front of you and stuff all your strikes?
> 
> Probably not, and I don't either. That's why it's a skill set. To add to this grappling skills are far less intuitive than striking skills, meaning an untrained grappler is far less likely to instictively react correctly to a double leg(underhook, sprawl) than to an overhand(duck!).
> 
> This all becomes self evident on day one of training with skillful grapplers. I say all of this as a guy that is 80% striker 20% grappler with a CMA base.


I will include you on my list.  A person can have grappling skills without it being BJJ grappling skills.


----------



## dunc

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How does Bujinkan define those 30 throws?
> 
> In SC, there are 62 different categories throws. A total over 230 throws. Even just the foot sweep, there are 35 different ways to apply it.



Actually they are not really defined (despite some people's efforts to do so)
The throws are in the context of the overall situation/technique/drill and often don't really have a name


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> I will include you on my list.  A person can have grappling skills without it being BJJ grappling skills.


If it's grappling and it works, it is BJJ.  I thought this was well established by now.   Sheesh.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> I dunno man. I understand and can apply WC things because of the perspective offered by MMA training. Sometimes you need to take your toe off the line to step forward.


Nope. You just need to spar against other systems and communicate.  I've learned thing about Jow Ga from other people who share how techniques in their system works.  It didn't require me to train in that system to understand how that application may be similar and technique in Jow Ga.

For example I didn't understand the application of the low horse stance prior to sparring with grappliers. I didn't have to train their system to learn more about mine.  I only had to be confronted with that system and dig deeper into the system I train.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

kempodisciple said:


> A while ago when I was looking at new schools, I saw it a bit. Not necessarily _only_ that, but most of it was "these are the SD techniques", and there would be no chaining techniques, because there was no need to do so. I saw this moreso in hybrid systems then in grappling oriented schools. And it may have been the result of 1-2 trial classes.


I'm not saying they don't use pre-defined situations (situational drills). But I haven't seen one that only did the pre-defined situations. It's pretty common IME for them to center their study around pre-defined situations (conceptually similar to how techniques are approached in sport training, too), but then there's normally some time spent on "just attack me" stuff.

Now, as you point out, it's not uncommon for them to reduce it to a one-and-done routine, where they don't really learn what to do when an attempted technique doesn't work, for whatever reason.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> By the way will I be seen as one of those nasty mmaers of I admit I am really starting to dislike this club.


We don't know they never move beyond those scenarios, though. That was my point. KFW referred to the SD model as sticking to pre-defined situations, but that hasn't been my experience at any SD school I've visited, nor what I've heard from anyone who trains at one. SD schools have some typical flaws, but I'm not aware of that being one.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In sport, if you have taken 20 guys down in the past and nobody has ever taken you down before, the chance that you think you can take the 21th guy down will be high. That's your confidence. You may say, "I have 20-0 under my belt."
> 
> In SD, I don't know how to measure your ability and how to develop that kind of confidence.


You can do the same thing, when training for SD. SD isn't the opposite of sport. Someone can train for either as their purpose for training, using most of the same training methods. They are less different than they are similar, if we ignore the differences between styles. I know folks whose purpose is SD, who train in sport-oriented settings. I've even known a few sport-oriented folks who cross-trained in SD schools to explore a different approach to see if they could find something new for themselves.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> the SD model as sticking to pre-defined situations,


I had talked to 3 Shaolin monks before their demo. they told me that they are only allowed to teach the pre-defined application in their forms. they may just want to produce students that just know one application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Not sure why you even mentioned this.  When I've clearly have not stated that I can't be taken down.    The difference between Judoka, Bjjers, Samboists, MMAers, and Wrestlers is that they embrace fighting on the ground so they don't mind being on the ground.  I don't share that perspective.  I have no interest on being on the ground and this is something you cannot say about the systems that you just mentioned.
> 
> The only acceptable ground fighting for me is for me to be there for a second and then recover to my feet ASAP.  The best way I can show this difference is to put a comparison video of how other Jow Ga students were put on their backs compared to me sparring against the same people.  If I showed you this video you would be able to clearly see how unwilling I am to play within their strengths.  My perspective does not allow me to take those same risks that those other styles take.


I'm going to have to debate this point, JGW. Judoka have always (in the time I've been familiar with the art) resisted going to the ground - their ground work was for dealing with what happens if you end up down there, though it's true they had no particular reason to want to get up if they found themselves on the ground in a match. And fighters who are primarily strikers in MMA very much don't want to be on the ground with a grappler.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> ...what the f....


Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of that, either. I mean, _maybe _if the point was just to move around a lot and work up a sweat, but this is supposed to be grading.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> I will include you on my list.  A person can have grappling skills without it being BJJ grappling skills.


I know. I already already said that. You will not however, find them in any CMA besides perhaps chinese wrestling.






JowGaWolf said:


> Nope. You just need to spar against other systems and communicate.  I've learned thing about Jow Ga from other people who share how techniques in their system works.  It didn't require me to train in that system to understand how that application may be similar and technique in Jow Ga.
> 
> For example I didn't understand the application of the low horse stance prior to sparring with grappliers. I didn't have to train their system to learn more about mine.  I only had to be confronted with that system and dig deeper into the system I train.


So.indeed, your goal is to become the best you can be _at JowGa. _There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> You say this as if it's a choice. The fact is, if you haven't trained in a grappling art, you are going down to the ground the second someone that has closes their grip around any part of you.
> 
> It's honestly like sorcery.


Possibly. Though I've dealt with a couple of guys from predominantly striking arts (I don't recall - some form of Karate, I think) who were really "rooted". Trying to move them for grappling was really frustrating, and I mostly had to depend upon either catching them on the move and blocking a leg out, or using leg sweeping throws without properly disrupting their structure.

While those are exceptions, they were exceptionally well prepared to prevent being taken to the ground.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> My mom lives in Macon and I hope that some day I can schedule some time to stop in Atlanta and get a workout in with you when I’m driving to visit her.


I've been meaning to get over to see him, too, Tony. If you make it down, give a yell - he's only about 3 hours from my house.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of that, either. I mean, _maybe _if the point was just to move around a lot and work up a sweat, but this is supposed to be grading.


It looks like an unruly 3rd grade class on substitute teacher day.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> SD isn't the opposite of sport.


In SD, if you let your opponent to throw 20 punches toward your head in any way that he may like to. You just try to block all those 20 punches. You are using sport training method by my definition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> According to the Bujinkan, there's over 30 throws.
> Here is also some Bujinkan newaza:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I certainly understand they have some hang-ups with making things more "deadly" than necessary, it shouldn't take much to modify a throw or a pin to make it comply to a ruleset if you have the base skill to pull it off in the first place.
> 
> I think the issue is that they don't have the skill in the first place.


There's an additional issue that SD-oriented training faces in trying to pivot to competition grappling. I've tried to explain it before, and maybe I'll do better here. Some locks are only useful for destruction - they simply don't have a solid base for restricting movement while they are applied with control long enough for an opponent to realize they're trapped and then tap out. Some even have a risk that a "wrong" counter can lead into the lock even harder, and the only way to avoid destruction (some sort of significant injury to the joint) is to entirely release the lock.

SD grappling often leans on these a lot, and having a habit of reaching for those leaves gaps that can't be quickly filled, because you're not in position for a different technique. I can recover one of those locks if it fails and pivot it into something else that's useful. But in a competition format, against someone of roughly equal grappling skill, every time I step near one of those techniques and have to bail because it doesn't fit the need, it leaves an opening for them to counter. So, the guy who trains for sport will have a pretty big advantage in competition over the guy who trains in one of those SD approaches that uses the destructive locks a lot. There's an easy fix, but it's not in line with the person's purpose for training: train specifically what will work in the competition, rather than including those techniques that won't be useful there.

(On a side note, some of those techniques have less-destructive variations that LEO trained in them find useful, but which don't show up in competition. I can only assume that's because someone with any significant training can shut them down too easily.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Certainly. However if you wish to compete utilizing Ninjutsu such work should be expected and not be an insurmountable task.
> 
> In Bjj, you have to take competition classes to prepare yourself for competition. In those classes several Bjj techniques are modified, and if it is nogi, those techniques are modified even further.


I guess that depends what the reason is for competing. If I manage to find someplace to compete, I can't see me doing much to change my training in preparation. The point of competing wouldn't be to win the event, but to see what I can make work and what causes me problems. Now, I might find reason to change something in my training as a result of what works and what causes me problems, but not if I think it's something specific to the competition format.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I had talked to 3 Shaolin monks before their demo. they told me that they are only allowed to teach the pre-defined application in their forms. they may just want to produce students that just know one application.


Okay, so that's how they train. Sounds like a Shaolin model, rather than the SD model.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> It looks like an unruly 3rd grade class on substitute teacher day.


Maybe a little to organized for that, unless the 3rd-graders chose their own activities and just refused to stop.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In SD, if you let your opponent to throw 20 punches toward your head in any way that he may like to. You just try to block all those 20 punches. You are using sport training method by my definition.


Okay. By my definition, that's a normal part of SD training.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> There comes a point where you have to ask yourself why you train. Is it to be the best you can be _at a style_, or do you want to be the best you can be?


My answer is:  I want to be the best I can be at Jow Ga.


For the longest this is all people used to think that the flute was capable of you can't be cool with this stuff.  You can't be a Rock Stuff with this stuff.






But people didn't give up on being the best they go be with playing the flute.






Now people understand that the flute can be more than just classical and stuffy.  It can actually cool. But you can't expand your instrument "style" by abandoning it.  He didn't get a guitar simply because that was the "in thing" to do.  






Now the real question becomes.  Is your fighting system actually a  roadblock, or is it a road block only because you think it is?

If everyone only thought the flute could be a classical instrument and nothing more, then  it's clear they didn't explore beyond a classical understanding.   If I don't seek seek a deeper understanding of Jow Ga then yes, it will become a roadblock.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> It depends if you want to be the best you can at a style, or the best martial artist you can be.


What's the difference?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> If it's grappling and it works, it is BJJ.  I thought this was well established by now.   Sheesh.


Thanks for reminding me. Now I feel stupid lol


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> I'm going to have to debate this point, JGW. Judoka have always (in the time I've been familiar with the art) resisted going to the ground - their ground work was for dealing with what happens if you end up down there, though it's true they had no particular reason to want to get up if they found themselves on the ground in a match. And fighters who are primarily strikers in MMA very much don't want to be on the ground with a grappler.


I can't argue or debate with your analysis.  What you say is true,


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> What's the difference?


With one you are constrained by the ideas concepts and methods of a few long dead individuals, with the other there is no such constraints.

...and that's all a style is. The ideas of one or a few people that decided this should be this and that should be that. They got some stuff right, some stuff wrong.

The only barometer is testing it, I realize you get that. I know you've realized that in a pretty impactful way from reading the personal information you've made public on this forum. I also realize that you have a level of loyalty to and pride in that style, coming from the years you've put into it. Trust me I understand that.

All I can say is there came a time when I needed a wider world. There is a whole world of martial arts, beyond the scope of any one group of people with various or questionable credentials (due to living so far back into antiquity). This is one point Bruce Lee got right.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything about what you do, I really don't know much about jowga at all. I would be willing to bet it would be even better with some wrestling takedown defense(which you will only learn by wrestling) and some mount escapes(which will require mat time rolling with some sort of jujitsu or judo guys) so you can get up and jowga some more if you do get dragged down, however.

Just sayin' broski


----------



## Martial D

Steve said:


> If it's grappling and it works, it is BJJ.  I thought this was well established by now.   Sheesh.


I know you are joking here, but only 50%

The other 60%, I feel, was a serious statement. You're a jitz teacher right? So you get that if it works, if it wasn't jitz before it is now, cause people will start doing it.

Oh, the math? I feel you probably give 110%


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> My answer is:  I want to be the best I can be at Jow Ga.
> 
> 
> For the longest this is all people used to think that the flute was capable of you can't be cool with this stuff.  You can't be a Rock Stuff with this stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But people didn't give up on being the best they go be with playing the flute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now people understand that the flute can be more than just classical and stuffy.  It can actually cool. But you can't expand your instrument "style" by abandoning it.  He didn't get a guitar simply because that was the "in thing" to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now the real question becomes.  Is your fighting system actually a  roadblock, or is it a road block only because you think it is?
> 
> If everyone only thought the flute could be a classical instrument and nothing more, then  it's clear they didn't explore beyond a classical understanding.   If I don't seek seek a deeper understanding of Jow Ga then yes, it will become a roadblock.


I think some of this comes down to a difference in view of what an art is. Some folks define what they do by their art (as you do). Others are collecting what works (especially what works for them) into their personal style, regardless of which style it comes from. Some styles (like BJJ) follow that same path. Some of us base what we do around an art, and see things through that lens, but also seek what works elsewhere and fit it into how we see that art's framework (that'd be me).

So, when you make your statements about how you view yourself with Jow Ga, it doesn't sound in our heads like it does in yours. I don't really care if I'm the best at either doing or teaching NGA. For my own usage, I want to get better at what I do (regardless of where the techniques came from). As a teacher, I'm hoping to shift a bit what NGA actually is seen as by others who practice it - mostly by incorporating from any source what I think fits the framework of NGA and improves the toolset. So, your approach and mine have a similar purpose, but we see the framework differently - yours is focused around what you see as the art, and to me the art is just a container for whatever fits.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> If it's grappling and it works, it is BJJ.  I thought this was well established by now.   Sheesh.


Nah, if it's grappling and it works, it's NGA. Unless it makes my knees hurt, then it's BJJ.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Some folks define what they do by their art.


The problem of this approach is if the

- MT flying knee, or
- Karate flying side kick, or
- TKD spin back kick, or
- SC leg twist,

are not in your system, no matter how deep that you may dig into your art, you won't be able to find it. Others may not care if they can't do these moves but I do. If I know there is a MA move that I don't know how to do it, I won't be able to be sleep that night.

The following kicks will never be integrated into the Combat SC system if SC guys just dig into their own system.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Okay. By my definition, that's a normal part of SD training.



Really?

Are we going to have this "street hook" debate again


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> yours is focused around what you see as the art, and to me the art is just a container for whatever fits.


 Keep in mind that Jow Ga is made from 3 different fighting systems.  The creation of Jow Ga is no different from what you are trying to do with NGA.


----------



## Hanzou

The problem with traditional arts is that they don't evolve, so seeking "deeper meaning" is kind of pointless if you're not introducing new methods. It's like trying to seek deeper meaning in Alchemy when we have Chemistry which is the superior method, and can continue to grow as knowledge grows. Alchemy on the other hand is a dead art created from ignorance and superstitions.

More to the point; Part of the reason Ninjutsu lost in that contest in the OP was because you're pitting science vs pseudo-science, and science always has the advantage.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The problem of this approach is if the
> 
> - MT flying knee, or
> - Karate flying side kick, or
> - TKD spin back kick, or
> - SC leg twist,
> 
> are not in your system, no matter how deep that you may dig into your art, you won't be able to find it. Others may not care if they can't do these moves but I do. If I know there is a MA move that I don't know how to do it, I won't be able to be sleep that night.
> 
> The following kicks will never be integrated into the Combat SC system if SC guys just dig into their own system.


You're correct, though it only matters insofar as there's something they want to be able to do. On your list, I don't really care about two of those (the flying knee and flying side kick). If someone doesn't find things outside their art that solve a problem they wish to solve, then their art does all they need. And some people are just training for the sake of learning some skills, so one art serves them quite well in that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Really?
> 
> Are we going to have this "street hook" debate again


I'm not sure what you mean by "street hook", DB. 

But, in response to the first question, yes, really. It's pretty common, in the SD-oriented schools I've seen, for them to spend time just working against punches (or grips, or tackles, etc.). Not a specific punch, not necessarily even a specific target, but just to ask their partner to feed them punches/try to punch them (different concepts, for different purposes). How realistic those are tends to be highly variable (seemingly mostly dependent upon whether they spar and practice realistic punching), but most of them do something quite like he described in the post I quoted.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Keep in mind that Jow Ga is made from 3 different fighting systems.  The creation of Jow Ga is no different from what you are trying to do with NGA.


Probably not much different from what the founder of NGA was doing with it, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> The problem with traditional arts is that they don't evolve, so seeking "deeper meaning" is kind of pointless if you're not introducing new methods. It's like trying to seek deeper meaning in Alchemy when we have Chemistry which is the superior method, and can continue to grow as knowledge grows. Alchemy on the other hand is a dead art created from ignorance and superstitions.
> 
> More to the point; Part of the reason Ninjutsu lost in that contest in the OP was because you're pitting science vs pseudo-science, and science always has the advantage.


I agree, except I'd add the word "some" in there somewhere. I'd consider NGA a moderately traditional art. In some schools, they're trying to hold it static (digging into the intent of the founder, as you see in Aikido) while others (and I'm probably near the more radical end of this description) are letting it evolve, and even pushing change.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> The problem with traditional arts is that they don't evolve, so seeking "deeper meaning" is kind of pointless if you're not introducing new methods.


  I think they still evolve but not by adding.  If this was true then boxing would have never evolved.





The issue with traditional martial arts and it's evolution is that there are many teachers of it that actually don't try to seek deeper meaning of it.  There are many TMA teachers who can't use the techniques that they train nor do they have any interest in doing so. To be honest, there is nothing wrong with this unless you are trying to use the system for fighting. I believe a system for fighting can only evolve by fighting.  If you want the system to remain a good fighting system then it cannot evolve in absence of fighting.

The truth about many TMAs is that they are evolving.  They just aren't evolving into fighting systems, they are evolving into entertainment performance and acrobatic systems.  The only reason's they are evolving into these systems is because the majority of the people aren't using them for fighting.

You can always introduced new applications of something that already exists.  

For example, Jow Ga teaches a punching technique that I actually use as a grappling technique.   No one taught me this application of the punching technique.  I learned it on my own during fighting.  So my discovery could very well be an evolution of this punching technique.  Or I may have discovered that this grappling application was always there from the beginning and it's just that teachers weren't using the techniques in sparring. As a result they weren't ever going to discover this by not sparring with the techniques.

Fighting techniques cannot evolve without actually fighting / sparring.  I can't just do forms all day and hope to evolve, improve, or understanding an existing technique.  I actually have to use those techniques.  The more I use those techniques, the better the chance will be for it's evolution.

The more people played the flute the more the flute was able to evolve.

The more peopled boxed, the more boxing evolved.

Most of the people you are referring to about TMA probably can't even use their techniques so how are those techniques going to evolve for fighting if you can't use them?  You have to use what you train, if it doesn't work, then figure out what you were doing wrong with the technique. Gain a better understanding of the technique and try the new theory. Eventually you'll get it right, but not after a bunch of failures.





It's the same process as the invention of flight.  Plane didn't fly this time, what did I do wrong? Rethink your understanding of the concept of flight.  Try again.  Got it wrong again? Rethink your understanding of flight.  What are you getting right? what are you getting wrong?  Try again.  Eventually you'll gain the understanding your need to fly

My training takes a similar path.  Some guy in the past was known to use these techniques for fighting.  use the technique in sparring.  The technique didn't work this time. What did I do wrong? Rethink my understanding of the concept of the technique. Try again. Got it wrong again? Rethink my understanding of the technique.  What am I getting right? What am I getting wrong? Try again.  Eventually I'll gain the understanding I'll need to use the technique.

Once I understand the technique, then I can start improving on the technique and evolving the technique.  Similar to how the jab and footwork evolved for boxing.


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> I know you are joking here, but only 50%
> 
> The other 60%, I feel, was a serious statement. You're a jitz teacher right? So you get that if it works, if it wasn't jitz before it is now, cause people will start doing it.
> 
> Oh, the math? I feel you probably give 110%


First, I don't teach.  I have run classes now and again in the past, but that's very different.  

But to the main point, yes, it was tongue in cheek, but you're spot on.   BJJ is very pragmatic, as a style.  I remember several years ago, Josh Barnett was fighting in pride.  My coach mentioned he had good jiu jitsu.  I said, "isn't he a catch wrestler?"   Lol...  The look i gotmwas priceless.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> digging into the intent of the founder, as you see in Aikido


Now this is the danger point for me.  You have permission to "shake some sense into me" if I start talking about what a founder intended as a reason to not change things up.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> My coach mentioned he had good jiu jitsu. I said, "isn't he a catch wrestler?" Lol... The look i gotmwas priceless.


Sounds like Hanzou all day. lol.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> My coach mentioned he had good jiu jitsu.  I said, "isn't he a catch wrestler?"   Lol...  The look i gotmwas priceless.


This just remind me one day someone asked me, "Are you teaching Chinese Judo? Why did you cut the sleeves of your Judo Gi off?"


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Now this is the danger point for me.  You have permission to "shake some sense into me" if I start talking about what a founder intended as a reason to not change things up.


A good place to draw a line, my friend. I'm all for wondering what might have been intended. But using what I _think_ was the intention, to stop me from doing what I find works....


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> First, I don't teach.  I have run classes now and again in the past, but that's very different.
> 
> But to the main point, yes, it was tongue in cheek, but you're spot on.   BJJ is very pragmatic, as a style.  I remember several years ago, Josh Barnett was fighting in pride.  My coach mentioned he had good jiu jitsu.  I said, "isn't he a catch wrestler?"   Lol...  The look i gotmwas priceless.



Yeah people are applauding kabibs jits at the moment as well


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> Yeah people are applauding kabibs jits at the moment as well


My perspective is that Judo, BJJ, Sambo, and wrestling in its various forms are all just aspects of the same art. The apparent differences are just situational adaptations to different rulesets or superficial expressions of culture. The underlying principles are the same.


----------



## Hanzou

Tony Dismukes said:


> My perspective is that Judo, BJJ, Sambo, and wrestling in its various forms are all just aspects of the same art. The apparent differences are just situational adaptations to different rulesets or superficial expressions of culture. The underlying principles are the same.



Well if Rickson, Relson, and Rorian have their way, you'll soon be having Gjj as a separate entity to Bjj.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Well if Rickson, Relson, and Rorian have their way, you'll soon be having Gjj as a separate entity to Bjj.


Not sure why.  It will just follow the same path as Bjj


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I think they still evolve but not by adding.  If this was true then boxing would have never evolved.



Boxing evolved because new people entered the sport and offered new tactics and methods. When certain people became dominant, other fighters adapted those methods into their training methodology. This made boxing a more effective and technical sport over time because there was an objective standard: Winning boxing matches. If a fighter's methodology failed, it  along with the fighter was discarded. If the fighter's methodology was successful, others adopted the model yet also put their own spin on it based on their body type and individual talents.

That is a far cry from having someone creating a fighting system and their disciples dogmatically attempting to adhere to the established fighting method. What's worse is that there's no objective standard to place it against, which further adds to its decay.



> The issue with traditional martial arts and it's evolution is that there are many teachers of it that actually don't try to seek deeper meaning of it.  There are many TMA teachers who can't use the techniques that they train nor do they have any interest in doing so. To be honest, there is nothing wrong with this unless you are trying to use the system for fighting. I believe a system for fighting can only evolve by fighting.  If you want the system to remain a good fighting system then it cannot evolve in absence of fighting.
> 
> The truth about many TMAs is that they are evolving.  They just aren't evolving into fighting systems, they are evolving into entertainment performance and acrobatic systems.  The only reason's they are evolving into these systems is because the majority of the people aren't using them for fighting.
> 
> You can always introduced new applications of something that already exists.
> 
> For example, Jow Ga teaches a punching technique that I actually use as a grappling technique.   No one taught me this application of the punching technique.  I learned it on my own during fighting.  So my discovery could very well be an evolution of this punching technique.  Or I may have discovered that this grappling application was always there from the beginning and it's just that teachers weren't using the techniques in sparring. As a result they weren't ever going to discover this by not sparring with the techniques.
> 
> Fighting techniques cannot evolve without actually fighting / sparring.  I can't just do forms all day and hope to evolve, improve, or understanding an existing technique.  I actually have to use those techniques.  The more I use those techniques, the better the chance will be for it's evolution.
> 
> The more people played the flute the more the flute was able to evolve.
> 
> The more peopled boxed, the more boxing evolved.
> 
> Most of the people you are referring to about TMA probably can't even use their techniques so how are those techniques going to evolve for fighting if you can't use them?  You have to use what you train, if it doesn't work, then figure out what you were doing wrong with the technique. Gain a better understanding of the technique and try the new theory. Eventually you'll get it right, but not after a bunch of failures.



I agree.



> It's the same process as the invention of flight.  Plane didn't fly this time, what did I do wrong? Rethink your understanding of the concept of flight.  Try again.  Got it wrong again? Rethink your understanding of flight.  What are you getting right? what are you getting wrong?  Try again.  Eventually you'll gain the understanding your need to fly.



While an interesting analogy, keep in mind that planes work via a standardized model. No one is building a workable plane with wings that flap like a bird for example, and all modern planes are using similar engines and turbines. Fighting works in a similar fashion. When broken down, all fighting looks like a MMA match at varying skill levels. I have yet to see someone break into a Crane Stance and start doing crane kung fu while someone is socking them in the face. Instead of making a plane with a flawed design, why not go with the working design and save time trying to reach your destination?



> My training takes a similar path.  Some guy in the past was known to use these techniques for fighting.  use the technique in sparring.  The technique didn't work this time. What did I do wrong? Rethink my understanding of the concept of the technique. Try again. Got it wrong again? Rethink my understanding of the technique.  What am I getting right? What am I getting wrong? Try again.  Eventually I'll gain the understanding I'll need to use the technique.
> 
> Once I understand the technique, then I can start improving on the technique and evolving the technique.  Similar to how the jab and footwork evolved for boxing.



Here's the question though: If we're not seeing modern fighters using this style, can we actually believe that the founder was actually some amazing fighter? It's like those stories of Ueshiba throwing people with his pinky, or Mas Oyama killing bulls with a reverse punch; Once held to a bit more scrutiny, it all becomes a big Asian fairy tale.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Not sure why.  It will just follow the same path as Bjj



No, Rickson and the boys want a return to old school GJJ. They feel that the sport aspect taking over and is diluting the original style that was more about street fighting and Vale Tudo.

I agree with some of their arguments (the lack of standup coming from some Bjj schools is simply inexcusable), and I'm happy that my base in Bjj is within the GJJ sphere (Relson Gracie), but I can't help but think the REAL reason they're seeking to do this is because they're losing competitions to more sport-oriented schools.

Edit:
RICKSON GRACIE on How Jiu Jitsu is Losing its identity


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Boxing evolved because new people entered the sport and offered new tactics and methods.


 This is what I've been saying all along.  They improve what was already there.  They didn't jump out of the system to adopt a Hung Ga punch because the boxing jab was no good.  They improved on what was already there. 



Hanzou said:


> That is a far cry from having someone creating a fighting system and their disciples dogmatically attempting to adhere to the established fighting method. What's worse is that there's no objective standard to place it against, which further adds to its decay.


I read this 5 times and I have no clue as to what you are talking about and how that applies to creating a fighting system nor my example of boxing.

The fact that overall boxers only punch is exactly the text book example of adhering to an established fighting method and yet there is clear proof of it evolving.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> No one is building a workable plane with wings that flap like a bird for example,


Flapping flying machine that flys


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Flapping flying machine that flys



That isn't an airplane.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> This is what I've been saying all along.  They improve what was already there.  They didn't jump out of the system to adopt a Hung Ga punch because the boxing jab was no good.  They improved on what was already there.



Yes, and they also changed what was there and removed things that didn't work or became outdated.



> I read this 5 times and I have no clue as to what you are talking about and how that applies to creating a fighting system nor my example of boxing.



I was talking about TMAs.



> The fact that overall boxers only punch is exactly the text book example of adhering to an established fighting method and yet there is clear proof of it evolving.



The reason it evolved was because it had an objective standard: Winning boxing matches.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> No one is building a workable plane with wings that flap like a bird for example

















I guess they are still at it.  Their predecessors never flew.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> That isn't an airplane.


You are right.  It's an Ornithopter airplanes don't flap, never have.  They are 2 different flying machines.  One cannot be the other.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> The reason it evolved was because it had an objective standard: Winning boxing matches.


Wrong.  The reason it evolved is because people were using the techniques and as a result learned how to make improvements on the existing techniques.  Winning is just a by product of the improved techniques.  Even if you took away the concept of winning those improvements would still happen. If an improvement on an existing technique allows you to be more effective at hitting the opponent more the earlier version of that same technique, then you are going to use that technique regardless of the concept of winning. Because the concept of boxing is to punch your opponent.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Wrong.  The reason it evolved is because people were using the techniques and as a result learned how to make improvements on the existing techniques.  Winning is just a by product of the improved techniques.  Even if you took away the concept of winning those improvements would still happen. If an improvement on an existing technique allows you to be more effective at hitting the opponent more the earlier version of that same technique, then you are going to use that technique regardless of the concept of winning. Because the concept of boxing is to punch your opponent.



Wrong. Take the uppercut for example. The uppercut was introduced by Duth Sam in the early 1800s and he wrecked havoc in boxing until a new way was discovered to block it. Why create new devastating techniques? Why create new methods to stop these new devastating techniques? Because you want to win. There would be no reason to create an uppercut or the method to block the uppercut if that goal wasn't in place. Further, if boxing were structured like a TMA, such a new, devastating technique would have been rejected or ignored.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> You are right.  It's an Ornithopter airplanes don't flap, never have.  They are 2 different flying machines.  One cannot be the other.



Yeah, and we were talking about planes. You know, flying machines that can carry loads of passengers and cargo over long distances.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> I was talking about TMAs.


TMA will follow similar paths of fighting evolution, if the techniques are often used during sparring and competitive fighting,  If you and I are trained to do the same back fist technique, but you actually use yours in sparring and fighting, then you will be able to make improvements on that backfist technique because it's something you use and have gained a better understanding of as a result.  If I don't use mine, then my backfist will always be same as it was when it was first taught to me. My backfist won't evolve because I won't have the same experience and knowledge that you gained from actually using it.  I would have theories and I would go to you and tell you that you are wrong because that's not how it was taught to us.  You would reject that reasoning and tell me that you know because you use it and I don't.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Take the uppercut for example. The uppercut was introduced by Duth Sam in the early 1800s and he wrecked havoc in boxing until a new way was discovered to block it.


I'm pretty sure the uppercut existed long before then. It may not have been called an upper cut, but there's no way you can tell me out of all of the human wars and battles, and village fighting that uppercuts never existed.. Even inexperienced and untrained people do uppercuts. 

There are fighting systems older than the 1800s that have uppercuts in them.  Hung ga was said to be created in the 17th century and that stuff is full of uppercuts.

Dambe is said to be older than Hung Ga and that has upper cuts.  How long have humans been fighting on this planet and you are telling me that there was never a punch that look like an uppercut until the 1800's?
Duth Sam just gave a catchy name to something that already existed.  Just like Rogain naming an existing kick that has been around for centuries an Oblique kick.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm pretty sure the uppercut existed long before then. It may not have been called an upper cut, but there's no way you can tell me out of all of the human wars and battles, and village fighting that uppercuts never existed.. Even inexperienced and untrained people do uppercuts.
> 
> There are fighting systems older than the 1800s that have uppercuts in them.  Hung ga was said to be created in the 17th century and that stuff is full of uppercuts.
> 
> Dambe is said to be older than Hung Ga and that has upper cuts.  How long have humans been fighting on this planet and you are telling me that there was never a punch that look like an uppercut until the 1800's?
> Duth Sam just gave a catchy name to something that already existed.  Just like Rogain naming an existing kick that has been around for centuries an Oblique kick.



It obviously didn't exist in boxing, because Dutch Sam was using it to devastating effect and a new block had to be created to defend against it.

Then you have Jim Corbett's innovation in footwork that allowed him to beat larger and stronger opponents with evasion and timing. His scientific approach to boxing influenced other fighters and added an air of sophistication to the sport that helped it become more acceptable to society as a whole.

Again, in both of those instances you have new things being introduced to the sport that helped it evolve into what it is today. It should also be noted that both of those innovations would have been rejected in a TMA.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, and we were talking about planes. You know, flying machines that can carry loads of passengers and cargo over long distances.


 But planes don't flap.  so you are talking about 2 different flying machines.  In other words if you made an ornithopter that carried passengers it still wouldn't be an airplane.

It's like boxing.  As long as they are punching and using boxing techniques it will always be boxing. The moment you add a kick, it stops being boxing.
Kick boxing, chinese boxing, and Dambe boxing  are all fighting systems that have boxing in the name, but none of them is Boxing.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Then you have Jim Corbett's innovation in footwork that allowed him to beat larger and stronger opponents with evasion and timing.


So now you are saying that innovative footwork didn't exist until Jim Corbett.  So fighting footwork never evolved until Jim Corbett?


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> So now you are saying that innovative footwork didn't exist until Jim Corbett.  So fighting footwork never evolved until Jim Corbett?



It certainly did, but Corbett's was more effective and it allowed him to beat stronger opponents with his speed and evasiveness. His more scientific training method was adopted by later boxers. In other words, he caused an evolution in boxing just like Dutch Sam did.

You should also read up on Daniel Mendoza's contributions to boxing in the late 18th century.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> But planes don't flap.



That's my point. There's a standard model for airplane design and flapping wings ain't part of it.  



> so you are talking about 2 different flying machines.  In other words if you made an ornithopter that carried passengers it still wouldn't be an airplane.



No, I'm saying that there is a standard model of airplane design, just like there is a standard model for fighting. There's some slight variations to the model, but in general every functional plane and every functional fighter looks fundamentally the same.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Again, in both of those instances you have new things being introduced to the sport that helped it evolve into what it is today. It should also be noted that both of those innovations would have been rejected in a TMA.


Dude you must be really tired.  





This is Choy Ga.  One of the systems that Jow Ga was created from  take a look at foot work.





Choy Ga, Jow Ga, Hung Ga, and Shoalin utilizes upper cuts.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> No, I'm saying that there is a standard model of airplane design, just like there is a standard model for fighting. There's some slight variations to the model, but in general every functional plane and every functional fighter looks fundamentally the same.


  Planes more so than fighting.
Functional weapons fighting does not how the same standards as functional hand to hand fighting.  But if you are referring to functional hand combat then yes. The functional fighter will fundamentally look the same which is why we can look at those stupid Tai Chi vs MMA videos and tell right away that the Tai Chi guy has never done sparring before. Right off the back we see that he lacks that functional standard that you are speaking of.  Hands up, knees bent, foot position and the look of being ready are just some of the biggest give away.  That's more of a training issue than a technique issue. The standard that you speak of usually comes from doing (fighting) and not just drilling.  Even if you didn't train a system, you would eventually develop a similar look simply fighting.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> there is a standard model for fighting. There's some slight variations to the model, but in general every functional plane and every functional fighter looks fundamentally the same


To me all grapplers look the same even if they do different techniques.  They always seem to be creeping up on me trying to get close and it always feels like they are trying to get me to stand up tall so that they can attack from the bottom.  Even when they punch it doesn't feel or look like they are committed to staying in a striking stance.  It always looks like something halfway between a striking and grappling stance (not the hunched one, but the drop down suddenly one.).


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Dude you must be really tired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is Choy Ga.  One of the systems that Jow Ga was created from  take a look at foot work.



You’re confused. I’m not saying that Corbett invented boxing footwork period. I’m saying that Corbett created a *superior* form of footwork that replaced the older versions of boxing footwork. In contrast, try convincing a Choy Li Fut ( or choy whatever) school to replace their 300+ year-old footwork with a new form based on western science. It ain’t going to happen, even if the new footwork creates a better fighter. 



> Choy Ga, Jow Ga, Hung Ga, and Shoalin utilizes upper cuts.



That ain’t no boxing uppercut.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> No, I'm saying that there is a



You have to know the rules before you can break the rules.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> You have to know the rules before you can break the rules.



Of course, and modern styles allow you to break the rules if it creates a better fighter in the end.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Of course, and modern styles allow you to break the rules if it creates a better fighter in the end.



Yeah. I was thinking of guys like mvp or Anderson Silva. Who can get away with doing their own thing. But they have a fundamental understanding of their craft first.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> While an interesting analogy, keep in mind that planes work via a standardized model. No one is building a workable plane with wings that flap like a bird for example, and all modern planes are using similar engines and turbines. Fighting works in a similar fashion. When broken down, all fighting looks like a MMA match at varying skill levels. I have yet to see someone break into a Crane Stance and start doing crane kung fu while someone is socking them in the face. Instead of making a plane with a flawed design, why not go with the working design and save time trying to reach your destination?


There’s a broader link to his analogy. We have jets, turbo-props, single- and double-engines. We have forward and backward props. We have helicopters, VTOL (vertical take-off and landing), and even convertible aircraft. Which is better? By the easiest standard, probably a jet engine, but we keep using others for purposes where they suit better (short landing strip, etc). And we keep working to innovate all of those areas. 

That’s without getting into the related area of glide-craft.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Wrong. Take the uppercut for example. The uppercut was introduced by Duth Sam in the early 1800s and he wrecked havoc in boxing until a new way was discovered to block it. Why create new devastating techniques? Why create new methods to stop these new devastating techniques? Because you want to win. There would be no reason to create an uppercut or the method to block the uppercut if that goal wasn't in place. Further, if boxing were structured like a TMA, such a new, devastating technique would have been rejected or ignored.


Winning competition isn’t the only driving force for innovation or evolution. It’s a strong one - perhaps the strongest - but it has some drawbacks as you’ve recently mentioned about BJJ competition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, and we were talking about planes. You know, flying machines that can carry loads of passengers and cargo over long distances.


Not all airplanes do that.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> There’s a broader link to his analogy. We have jets, turbo-props, single- and double-engines. We have forward and backward props. We have helicopters, VTOL (vertical take-off and landing), and even convertible aircraft. Which is better? By the easiest standard, probably a jet engine, but we keep using others for purposes where they suit better (short landing strip, etc). And we keep working to innovate all of those areas.
> 
> That’s without getting into the related area of glide-craft.



Yeah, but we were talking specifically about planes. When you think of an airplane, a very specific model pops in your head. You don't envision a bird looking vehicle covered in feathers with flapping wings, you vision the standard airplane design that's been in place for over 75 years.

Fighting is similar. When people fight, they generally look the same, whether they're trained or untrained; like a MMA fighter. They may dance around each other and pepper each other with strikes, they may clench up and try to take each other to the pavement, they may get a clean one-hit KO, but in the end, it all generally looks like an unpolished MMA bout.

So if your goal is to be a more proficient fighter, why waste time learning all those pretty and exaggerated movements when all you need is four boxing punches, a couple of kicks, and some grappling? In short, why not just learn to fight like an MMA fighter?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> That ain’t no boxing uppercut


While it is not a "Boxer's upper cut"  it is an upper and from this uppercut other variations can evolve from it and Jow Ga has a lot of variations of an uppercut.  
The follow up strike is an uppercut





Another variation





Some more upper cuts.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Here's the "boxer's uppercut"  like I stated we have tons of uppercuts in the system


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Winning competition isn’t the only driving force for innovation or evolution. It’s a strong one - perhaps the strongest - but it has some drawbacks as you’ve recently mentioned about BJJ competition.



True, but I don't feel that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Rickson is a personal hero of mine, and to learn from him was one of the pinnacle moments of learning Bjj, but I think he's trying to stop a raging river with a coffee cup.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> While it is not a "Boxer's upper cut"  it is an upper and from this uppercut other variations can evolve from it and Jow Ga has a lot of variations of an uppercut.
> The follow up strike is an uppercut
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another variation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some more upper cuts.



So you're arguing that boxing historians are lying about Dutch Sam introducing the uppercut to boxing?

Also those uppercut applications are atrocious.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> There’s a broader link to his analogy. We have jets, turbo-props, single- and double-engines. We have forward and backward props. We have helicopters, VTOL (vertical take-off and landing), and even convertible aircraft. Which is better? By the easiest standard, probably a jet engine, but we keep using others for purposes where they suit better (short landing strip, etc). And we keep working to innovate all of those areas.
> 
> That’s without getting into the related area of glide-craft.


Correct, and they all evolve by using that specific type of machine.  You can't make a better jet by switching from Jets to ground transportation.  You dig deep into what makes that jet work and improve on that stuff.  

The VTOL aircraft is more of what you doing with NGA.  You see a vertical take off and landing concept and wonder if it will fit well with NGA foundations.  When you get the combination correct you get something that is like a plane but not quite.  Now your NGA can do something that the original NGA cannot do.

This is the NGA variation that you are creating.  Taking the concept of one system and applying it to your own in a way that works.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but we were talking specifically about planes. When you think of an airplane, a very specific model pops in your head. You don't envision a bird looking vehicle covered in feathers with flapping wings, you vision the standard airplane design that's been in place for over 75 years.
> 
> Fighting is similar. When people fight, they generally look the same, whether they're trained or untrained; like a MMA fighter. They may dance around each other and pepper each other with strikes, they may clench up and try to take each other to the pavement, they may get a clean one-hit KO, but in the end, it all generally looks like an unpolished MMA bout.
> 
> So if your goal is to be a more proficient fighter, why waste time learning all those pretty and exaggerated movements when all you need is four boxing punches, a couple of kicks, and some grappling? In short, why not just learn to fight like an MMA fighter?


My point is that there are significant - and increasing - variations within that model. And there are parallel models that serve equally for some purposes and better for others. If we did a speed, distance, or load-carrying competition (or one that factors all 3), a jet probably wins unless someone brings a rocket. But we know from the evidence that other engines and even other flying models are superior for some purposes and equal for others. And in some cases where they aren’t even equal, they still get the job done quite satisfactorily.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> My point is that there are significant - and increasing - variations within that model. And there are parallel models that serve equally for some purposes and better for others. If we did a speed, distance, or load-carrying competition (or one that factors all 3), a jet probably wins unless someone brings a rocket. But we know from the evidence that other engines and even other flying models are superior for some purposes and equal for others. And in some cases where they aren’t even equal, they still get the job done quite satisfactorily.



Absolutely. Once we understand the rules (laws of thermodynamics, wing shape, lift, etc.) we can start bending and even breaking the rules. That takes trial and error, standardized objectives, and the scientific method. That is how innovation happens. My argument is simply that TMAs suffer from a lack of innovation because they don't understand the rules, and they oppose science and logic in favor of tradition and respect to a long-dead founder.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Absolutely. Once we understand the rules (laws of thermodynamics, wing shape, lift, etc.) we can start bending and even breaking the rules. That takes trial and error, standardized objectives, and the scientific method. That is how innovation happens. My argument is simply that TMAs suffer from a lack of innovation because they don't understand the rules, and they oppose science and logic in favor of tradition and respect to a long-dead founder.


That is true in at least some cases. Maybe most, though I haven’t seen enough to know what the proportion is. I don’t think that’s inherent in any style (though it is epidemic in some) - it’s about the people teaching those styles.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> That is true in at least some cases. Maybe most, though I haven’t seen enough to know what the proportion is. I don’t think that’s inherent in any style (though it is epidemic in some) - it’s about the people teaching those styles.



Well let's look at the evolution of grappling in the last 25 years, we went from the Gracies introducing Gjj, to every grappling system being mixed together to form something new and even more effective. Once we got the rules (take down, dominant position, submission) we started bending the rules (no gi, leg locks, new guards), and we bent the rules with other grappling systems. Wrestling, Judo, Catch, and Sambo were all dying on a vine, but Bjj and MMA brought them all back to the forefront. It's to the point now where I'd put a modern elite grappler over a Gracie without even flinching because the game is complex and ever changing.

Without question, MMA and Bjj are the driving forces of that evolution, because it gives people the outlet for experimentation and innovation. You simply don't see that in traditional styles.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> When people fight, they generally look the same, whether they're trained or untrained; like a MMA fighter


But what you are looking at is the general appearance.  Two fighters may move generally in the same way for combat but may strike and attack completely different.  

For example, this jet looks like a jet until you it moves out of the generalities of looking and performing like one.  BJJ based fighters will give the appearance of the Jet and then switch things up with a vertical maneuver. This is where the specifics come into play and it's often what distinguishes a style as being different from another.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Here's the question though: If we're not seeing modern fighters using this style, can we actually believe that the founder was actually some amazing fighter?


The problem is that we aren't watching the founder fight. So there's no way to really answer this question in regards to the founder.  The same thing can be said about early bareknuckle fighters pre-film technology.  Where all you have is a bunch of stories about something different they did and how they beat a bunch of other people.  We have no idea of the skill set of the opponents they fought and the level of training they had.  We can only go on what was said and written, along with any drawings that the founder may have made.

Just because the founder was awesome doesn't mean the student is going to be awesome the same skill sets.  Some people are naturals at it, often times those are the ones that have a really deep understanding of the system they train in, they eat and breath the use of the techniques.

How many modern fighters do we see use the "oblique kick"  just because we don't see many use it, does it mean that we are to believe that the founder of that kick wasn't amazing with it?


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> But what you are looking at is the general appearance.  Two fighters may move generally in the same way for combat but may strike and attack completely different.
> 
> For example, this jet looks like a jet until you it moves out of the generalities of looking and performing like one.  BJJ based fighters will give the appearance of the Jet and then switch things up with a vertical maneuver. This is where the specifics come into play and it's often what distinguishes a style as being different from another.



Like I said, once you understand the rules, you can start bending and breaking the rules.



JowGaWolf said:


> The problem is that we aren't watching the founder fight. So there's no way to really answer this question in regards to the founder.  The same thing can be said about early bareknuckle fighters pre-film technology.  Where all you have is a bunch of stories about something different they did and how they beat a bunch of other people.  We have no idea of the skill set of the opponents they fought and the level of training they had.  We can only go on what was said and written, along with any drawings that the founder may have made.



Except in the case of bare-knuckle fights and early boxing, we have records of the actual fights via newspaper and media at the time. Those are (fairly) objective sources. So we know that Jim Corbett and Jack Johnson were great fighters because their boxing records proved it. Additionally modern boxers are utilizing their techniques and are considered good fighters by modern standards and a lot of fighters outside of boxing also are using the boxing skill set. That proves that the forefathers of modern boxing had great skill.

What evidence do we have that the founder of Jow Ga was a great fighter? Where are the Jow Ga fighters at in MMA and other professional fight circuits?



> Just because the founder was awesome doesn't mean the student is going to be awesome the same skill sets.  Some people are naturals at it, often times those are the ones that have a really deep understanding of the system they train in, they eat and breath the use of the techniques.
> 
> How many modern fighters do we see use the "oblique kick"  just because we don't see many use it, does it mean that we are to believe that the founder of that kick wasn't amazing with it?



Except if you look at Bjj and Boxing, the skill set and the standard abilities of the practitioners have improved greatly. Mike Tyson or Floyd Mayweather in their prime would eat Jim Corbett, Dutch Sam, and other boxing greats for breakfast. The top modern grapplers are far better grapplers than the Gracies were. Jon Jones or Khabib would destroy Royce Gracie in MMA.

It's simple evolution, from start to finish.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Well let's look at the evolution of grappling in the last 25 years, we went from the Gracies introducing Gjj, to every grappling system being mixed together to form something new and even more effective. Once we got the rules (take down, dominant position, submission) we started bending the rules (no gi, leg locks, new guards), and we bent the rules with other grappling systems. Wrestling, Judo, Catch, and Sambo were all dying on a vine, but Bjj and MMA brought them all back to the forefront. It's to the point now where I'd put a modern elite grappler over a Gracie without even flinching because the game is complex and ever changing.
> 
> Without question, MMA and Bjj are the driving forces of that evolution, because it gives people the outlet for experimentation and innovation. You simply don't see that in traditional styles.


I agree it's uncommon in traditional styles. My point is just that it's not the style that restricts that - it's the people who do that. There's an instructor in NGA who won't teach anything in an NGA class that wasn't cleared by the instructor above him (and he doesn't ask - he waits to see if anything new comes down). I'm pretty much the opposite - I hang onto a few pieces specifically to keep some traditional links, but change what I think needs changing to improve learning and application. If a student wants to try something new (to me), I'm okay with it, so long as they first learn what I'm teaching (so, don't do a different version of one of the techniques to avoid the one I teach). That way, they can help me figure out what the advantages are of the other version they know. (An exception to this is strikes - if someone has working strikes, I won't bother to replace or even add to them if they have something for each area I teach a strike for, unless they want to learn mine.)

So, which is NGA? Both are. It's not the traditional art that doesn't evolve, it's the people who don't evolve the art. That might be a senseless distinction in some cases, since some arts have reached a point where they're unlikely to interest those who would innovate, and the idea of following the founder has become so strong it'd be difficult to find a school that would allow room for innovation among students.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I agree it's uncommon in traditional styles. My point is just that it's not the style that restricts that - it's the people who do that. There's an instructor in NGA who won't teach anything in an NGA class that wasn't cleared by the instructor above him (and he doesn't ask - he waits to see if anything new comes down). I'm pretty much the opposite - I hang onto a few pieces specifically to keep some traditional links, but change what I think needs changing to improve learning and application. If a student wants to try something new (to me), I'm okay with it, so long as they first learn what I'm teaching (so, don't do a different version of one of the techniques to avoid the one I teach). That way, they can help me figure out what the advantages are of the other version they know. (An exception to this is strikes - if someone has working strikes, I won't bother to replace or even add to them if they have something for each area I teach a strike for, unless they want to learn mine.)
> 
> So, which is NGA? Both are. It's not the traditional art that doesn't evolve, it's the people who don't evolve the art. That might be a senseless distinction in some cases, since some arts have reached a point where they're unlikely to interest those who would innovate, and the idea of following the founder has become so strong it'd be difficult to find a school that would allow room for innovation among students.



If my history on your system is correct, isn't NGA already an Aikido system known to incorporate techniques not traditionally considered "Aikido" like Osoto-Gari and Shihonnage? If that's the case, I can understand where your mindset comes from. I agree that a lot of it falls on the instructor over the style, but we shouldn't forget that within many styles the idea of innovation and changing the art is drilled out of their minds.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> So you're arguing that boxing historians are lying about Dutch Sam introducing the uppercut to boxing?
> 
> Also those uppercut applications are atrocious.


1.  I'm aruging the use of an uppercut like punch is only being told from one perspective and that's the upper cut as it was used in Boxing.  In terms of boxing, Dutch Sam may have introduced it to boxing, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist in other fighting systems.

2. They only look atrocious to you because you don't know how to use them and you can't see the concept of uppercut beyond boxing.  

Same concept throwing a uppercut under someone's arm can be seen in the various clips here.  The fighter at 4:34 throws a lead head uppercut which is what you'll  see with Jow Ga, and the uppercut was from a bladed stance.  If you take note, it was the lead upper cut that knocks the fighter down.  It traveled under the arm.  At 7:36  you will see an upper cut that travels underneath an extended arm.  At 8:02 you see the same thing but within close range.  The fighter does a lead hand uppercut from a bladed stance and hits under the guard.  





In Jow Ga used both rear hand and lead hand uppercuts.

Not Jow Ga but he throws a TMA rear hand upper cut


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Absolutely. Once we understand the rules (laws of thermodynamics, wing shape, lift, etc.) we can start bending and even breaking the rules. That takes trial and error, standardized objectives, and the scientific method. That is how innovation happens.


And all of what you stated requires a deeper understanding of "laws of theromodynamics, wing shape, lift, etc."  Which is what I've been saying all along about me having a deeper understanding of the existing Jow Ga techniques.

As for your statement about many in TMA not having the level of understanding needed for innovation and evolution.  I agree with this statement and it is what I've been saying all along.  The trial and error that you speak of happens during sparring and fighting, yet most TMA practitioners will abandon the techniques when it comes to sparring and fighting and as a result there is no trial and error learning.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> 1.  I'm aruging the use of an uppercut like punch is only being told from one perspective and that's the upper cut as it was used in Boxing.  In terms of boxing, Dutch Sam may have introduced it to boxing, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist in other fighting systems.



I never made that argument. I was only talking about western boxing, and how the introduction of the upper cut via Dutch Sam changed the system to the point where the system had to develop a counter to it. I have no idea where the uppercut originated from in Kung Fu.



> 2. They only look atrocious to you because you don't know how to use them and you can't see the concept of uppercut beyond boxing.



If you say so. When I see a Jow Ga professional fighter going toe-to-toe with a standard professional fighter/boxer and besting them using those Jow Ga strikes, it'll make a believer out of me.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> My point is just that it's not the style that restricts that - it's the people who do that.


Definitely. The style is rarely at fault in terms of restriction.  Most restrictions are often placed by people who don't get out and actually try to use the techniques against another system.  If they only spar within the system then applications can stay fairly consistent.  But once the attacks and defenses change it's necessary to start learning how to apply existing techniques in a different way. 



gpseymour said:


> There's an instructor in NGA who won't teach anything in an NGA class that wasn't cleared by the instructor above him (and he doesn't ask - he waits to see if anything new comes down). I'm pretty much the opposite -


I'm the same way too.  The other instructor that I worked with didn't like it, because that's not how it was taught.  The more I learned about the variation the more I began to thing that many of the teachers were incorrect about their approach to the techniques.  Just recently the head of the Jow Ga Association that I'm a part of stated the same thing in facebook to the Sifu's under him.  He literally said "Stop thinking like westerners. There is more than one way to do a technique."  While I'm not a Sifu, it's good to hear that the head of the organization to state that.  It means I'll be able to enjoy Jow Ga without someone saying "That's not how we do it."  My reply will always be "That may not be how it's taught, but this is one of the ways it works."


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> I never made that argument. I was only talking about western boxing, and how the introduction of the upper cut via Dutch Sam changed the system to the point where the system had to develop a counter to it.


 If you are only talking about western boxing then yes you are correct about how the uppercut was introduced to boxing according to boxing history.  I cannot find anything that disputes this in boxing history.



Hanzou said:


> If you say so. When I see a Jow Ga professional fighter going toe-to-toe with a standard professional fighter/boxer and besting them using those Jow Ga strikes, it'll make a believer out of me.


  So if I hit you with one and other people with one, then my technique isn't valid because I haven't done it against a professional fighter?


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> If you are only talking about western boxing then yes you are correct about how the uppercut was introduced to boxing according to boxing history.  I cannot find anything that disputes this in boxing history.



We were both only talking about western boxing. I don't know why you deviated from that and started bringing up Kung Fu "uppercuts".



> So if I hit you with one and other people with one, then my technique isn't valid because I haven't done it against a professional fighter?



You're arguing that the Kung Fu method of doing an uppercut is equal to the boxing method, yet the boxing method is pretty standard throughout the professional fighting world while the Kung Fu version is non-existent. Not even Sanda fighters are using Kung Fu uppercuts, they use western boxing as well.

For example, let's say that I make the argument that for fighting, Bjj grappling is equal to Wrestling. That argument is supported because professional fighters throughout the world use both wrestling and bjj for fighting purposes despite there being an overlap in places.

You can't say that one method is equal to another method used by professionals if the former isn't being used seriously by professionals at all.

A better argument here is are you better off using boxer punches or Kung Fu punches. For professional fighters (and most people) that answer is crystal clear.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> We were both only talking about western boxing. I don't know why you deviated from that and started bringing up Kung Fu "uppercuts"


because you mentioned how TMAs don't use and adopt those type of things.  Or did I read your statement wrong?



Hanzou said:


> You're arguing that the Kung Fu method of doing an uppercut is equal to the boxing method, yet the boxing method is pretty standard throughout the professional fighting world while the Kung Fu version is non-existent. Not even Sanda fighters are using Kung Fu uppercuts, they use western boxing as well.



How is a professional MMA fighting going to do a technique that he doesn't don't train?

As for martial arts practitioners who use their techniques.  You will see many of them fight Lei Tai.  There are numerous examples of kung fu upper cuts used here.





For other's you will see people working their techniques outside of competition.
0:31, 0:46, 0:57, 0:58, and 1:14 he throws a kung fu upper cut.  







Hanzou said:


> You can't say that one method is equal to another method used by professionals if the former isn't being used seriously by professionals at all.


I never said anything about equal.  I said TMA has uppercuts and they throw the uppercuts in a variety of ways.  Professionals aren't validations for a technique working.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> because you mentioned how TMAs don't use and adopt those type of things.  Or did I read your statement wrong?



Yeah, I said that TMAs don't add new techniques to established systems the way Boxing, Judo, Bjj, MMA, etc. does.



> How is a professional MMA fighting going to do a technique that he doesn't don't train?



MMA fighters seek out the best trainers to teach them the best techniques. If Kung Fu hand techniques were on par, MMA fighters would be training and using them. The fact that they choose western boxing over traditional Kung Fu even in China is very telling.



> As for martial arts practitioners who use their techniques.  You will see many of them fight Lei Tai.  There are numerous examples of kung fu upper cuts used here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For other's you will see people working their techniques outside of competition.
> 0:31, 0:46, 0:57, 0:58, and 1:14 he throws a kung fu upper cut.



Looks like standard kickboxing with some wild punching thrown in. It's shocking that these people spend all that time learning pretty forms and antiquated techniques to just end up looking like kick boxers with crazy punching at the end. Just incredible.



> I never said anything about equal.  I said TMA has uppercuts and they throw the uppercuts in a variety of ways.  Professionals aren't validations for a technique working.



They're validations for the best approach, since they fight for a living. No one is saying your Jow Ga uppercut doesn't work. I have no doubt that if you caught me in the face with your uppercut, I'd get KO'd just the same. Hell, people get knocked out by getting slapped in the face:






What I'm saying is that Boxing is the better method until someone from your camp proves otherwise.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, I said that TMAs don't add new techniques to established systems the way Boxing, Judo, Bjj, MMA, etc. does.


Some do when it's possible.  For example, in Jow Ga some of our upper cuts will look like boxing uppercuts but sometimes it won't because it's using the uppercut in a different manner. Which requires a different structure that will support the uppercut used in that manner.   For example,   The rear boxing upper cut is thrown with a different structure than the lead boxing uppercut.  You cannot expect the same structure to work for both variations.  In other words I literally cannot throw a lead uppercut with the same structure that I throw the rear upper cut.  

So there is no way under the laws of physics and human anatomy that you can have the same structure for both.  The big wheel punches that use the upper cut will not work with the boxer version of the uppercut because the first hand will throw you off balance if you do it that way.  There is no once size fits all for an uppercut structure.



Hanzou said:


> Looks like standard kickboxing with some wild punching thrown in. It's shocking that these people spend all that time learning pretty forms and antiquated techniques to just end up looking like kick boxers with crazy punching at the end. Just incredible.


  I use "antiquated techniques" and I look far from a kick boxer.  Those who end up looking like kick boxers do so because they aren't trying to use the techniques that they train.  They abandoned the techniques and use what feels safe.



Hanzou said:


> If Kung Fu hand techniques were on par, MMA fighters would be training and using them. The fact that they choose western boxing over traditional Kung Fu even in China is very telling.


Maybe they choose western boxing because that fits closely to what they currently know and how they currently punch.



Hanzou said:


> What I'm saying is that Boxing is the better method until someone from your camp proves otherwise.


I don't have to prove that it's better.  If you are getting Knocked out by a slap then it's irrelevant if it's better than an uppercut.   Because it's the slap that KOed you, not the uppercut.  If you hit me in the head with your forearm and I pass out, then it's totally irrelevant what is better.  It doesn't matter if professional fighters use it or not, because there I am knocked out on the ground because someone hit me in the head with a forearm.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> bringing up Kung Fu "uppercuts".


Actually, I think the Kung Fu uppercut is better than the boxing uppercut for the following reasons.

- You use left arm to pull down your opponent's head, uppercut to his chin at the same time.
- You use left hand to pull down your opponent's guard, borrow the counter force, your right hand then uppercut to his chin.
- It integrates defense and offense into one motion.
- This kind of "pull and punch" method can be integrated into the wrestling art much easier than the boxing uppercut.

1. Boxing - a punch is a punch.
2. Kung Fu - a punch can be a pull by one hand and a punch by other hand, or a punch by one hand and then pull by the same hand.

In order to truly integrate the striking art with the wrestling art, that "pull" is important.

My guys have no boxing training. Their striking art came from the long fist system. They can do uppercut just like normal boxer does.

A head pulling (downward force) and uppercut (upward force) at the same time can be seen in this clip.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> If my history on your system is correct, isn't NGA already an Aikido system known to incorporate techniques not traditionally considered "Aikido" like Osoto-Gari and Shihonnage? If that's the case, I can understand where your mindset comes from. I agree that a lot of it falls on the instructor over the style, but we shouldn't forget that within many styles the idea of innovation and changing the art is drilled out of their minds.


NGA is a cousin to Ueshiba's Aikido, not a branch from it. Both have Daito-ryu as their primary source. We also have some influence from Judo (hence the Osoto-Gari, which we call Leg Sweep). My take on NGA draws more heavily on the Judo influence, partly because my first self-chosen art was Judo (my parents enrolled me in Karate before that).

One side note: I've seen Shihonage taught in Aikido schools before. I don't know how common that is, though.

But yes, you (in your last paragraph) and I are saying much the same thing. I'm just being pedantic in insisting on differentiating between the style and the instructors of that style.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> hence the Osoto-Gari, which we call Leg Sweep.


If you call it "sweep" when using your right leg to hook the outside of your opponent's right leg (1st side), then if you use your right leg to hook the

2nd side - inside of your opponent's right leg,
3rd side - inside of your opponent's left leg,
4th side - outside of your opponent's left leg,

what will you call those throws?

How about to use your hook

- 90 degree up?
- 45 degree up?
- horizontal?
- 45 degree down?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you call it "sweep" when using your right leg to hook the outside of your opponent's right leg (1st side), then if you use your right leg to hook the
> 
> 2nd side - inside of your opponent's right leg,
> 3rd side - inside of your opponent's left leg,
> 4th side - outside of your opponent's left leg,
> 
> what will you call those throws?
> 
> How about to use your hook
> 
> - 90 degree up?
> - 45 degree up?
> - horizontal?
> - 45 degree down?


We'd call all of those "Leg Sweep" in NGA - just variations of the concept. I commonly teach a standard Leg Sweep (very similar to Osoto-gari), a front Leg Sweep (both facing the same direction), a double Leg Sweep (take both legs), and a side Leg Sweep (very carefully - easy to injure the knee). Other variations (like sweeping the farther leg) would be covered deeper in the curriculum as folks are ready for them.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> We'd call all of those "Leg Sweep" in NGA - just variations of the concept.


One of the brothers of the Jow Ga founder was said to be very street and not formal with the naming of techniques, so there's a lot of techniques that are more concept names  than specific names for a technique.  

It not uncommon for a Sifu to ask the student to perform variation of a technique name.  Having to learn in that type of naming environment makes it easier for me to understand your perspective when you call those things "Leg Sweep"  For us the only main difference in a lot of the sweep that we have is if the foot is hooking and pulling, sweeping like a round house type, or striking.  But from what I was taught all of our sweeps are sweeps if the foot makes a sweeping motion, even if it's pulling.  If there's an exception to that then I don't know it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> One of the brothers of the Jow Ga founder was said to be very street and not formal with the naming of techniques, so there's a lot of techniques that are more concept names  than specific names for a technique.
> 
> It not uncommon for a Sifu to ask the student to perform variation of a technique name.  Having to learn in that type of naming environment makes it easier for me to understand your perspective when you call those things "Leg Sweep"  For us the only main difference in a lot of the sweep that we have is if the foot is hooking and pulling, sweeping like a round house type, or striking.  But from what I was taught all of our sweeps are sweeps if the foot makes a sweeping motion, even if it's pulling.  If there's an exception to that then I don't know it.


The reason that Chinese wrestling uses different terms is because the set up are all different and the rooting leg position are all difference too.

For example, if you want to use your right leg to hook the inside of your opponent's

- left leg, you have to land your left foot in front of his left foot.
- right leg, you have to land your left foot behind his right foot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> One of the brothers of the Jow Ga founder was said to be very street and not formal with the naming of techniques, so there's a lot of techniques that are more concept names  than specific names for a technique.
> 
> It not uncommon for a Sifu to ask the student to perform variation of a technique name.  Having to learn in that type of naming environment makes it easier for me to understand your perspective when you call those things "Leg Sweep"  For us the only main difference in a lot of the sweep that we have is if the foot is hooking and pulling, sweeping like a round house type, or striking.  But from what I was taught all of our sweeps are sweeps if the foot makes a sweeping motion, even if it's pulling.  If there's an exception to that then I don't know it.


Yep, that's pretty much the way I see NGA - the named techniques are there to teach base concepts, so we often apply those names to many situations that use similar concepts. There's a throw in Judo that has both facing one direction, and sweeping the back leg up while throwing. To me, that combines the concepts of hip throw and Leg Sweep (the former isn't a named technique in NGA, but one I commonly teach). I find a lot of that along the way - applications that are combinations of multiple "techniques". Other styles (like Judo) would give them separate names.


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> True, but I don't feel that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Rickson is a personal hero of mine, and to learn from him was one of the pinnacle moments of learning Bjj, but I think he's trying to stop a raging river with a coffee cup.



Rickson had more of an impact in my Martial career, and more of an impact in my professional career as a DT instructor, than anybody ever did. Changed everything. Changed the training in my dojo, the way I taught my students, changed my understanding of Martial Arts, of fighting, completely changed our DT program.

I had said to my boss, "I'm going to revamp the entire DT program over the coming years and I'll need to retrain and recertify everyone." Bosses just love that. Mine said, 'Are you out of your fricken' mind? You designed the damn course to begin with."

I replied, "Come down my dojo next month and I'll show you." I was having Rickson down for a series of seminars. This was in 1992. My boss came down and took the first seminar. At the end of the night he walked away scratching his head and said, "Design anything you want. Take all the time you need."
That's a great boss.

Rickson also took my wife under his wing and worked the RNC with her for years. The woman has a God awful nasty choke. If she gets your back you are in big trouble. We trained in a Rickson school here on Maui in the nineties. She's 125 pounds. Big, local guys who were better grapplers than we were wouldn't pay much attention when a small wahine got their back. At least the first time. She'd put them out every time.




 

It was not pure Gracie Jiu-jitsu that Rickson first taught us, it was MMA - people sometimes get pissed when I tell them that....which usually makes me repeat it with great gusto. It was the principles of BJJ, mostly position and base, to throw effective strikes that we were already proficient in. 

Rickson taught me as much about punching on the ground as anyone has taught me anything. And I'll tell you what, if I get you in my closed guard I will punch you silly. It is my favorite place to throw punches from, even more than standing. No foolin'. Caveat - you need a strong core.

So, yeah, I kinda' like the guy, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The reason that Chinese wrestling uses different terms is because the set up are all different and the rooting leg position are all difference too.
> 
> For example, if you want to use your right leg to hook the inside of your opponent's
> 
> - left leg, you have to land your left foot in front of his left foot.
> - right leg, you have to land your left foot behind his right foot.


We (at least I) tend to separate the entry from the technique. So I'll discuss what's available from a given entry or position. And even when we combine the entry and technique as a single concept, we still just use the one name and discuss what's different about the setup in this version versus that version. It ends up being much the same approach, whether they are named differently or not.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> We (at least I) tend to separate the entry from the technique. So I'll discuss what's available from a given entry or position. And even when we combine the entry and technique as a single concept, we still just use the one name and discuss what's different about the setup in this version versus that version. It ends up being much the same approach, whether they are named differently or not.


I think the term "hook" may be better than the term "sweep". You are talking about a hook pulling motion. There is nothing wrong to say to hook your opponent's

- right leg from outside 45 degree up, or
- left leg from inside horizontally.

Actually I like the simple term better. It's just there are different Chinese terms for these.

Boar, hog, swing, pig, ... are the same thing afterward.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> Yep, that's pretty much the way I see NGA - the named techniques are there to teach base concepts, so we often apply those names to many situations that use similar concepts. There's a throw in Judo that has both facing one direction, and sweeping the back leg up while throwing. To me, that combines the concepts of hip throw and Leg Sweep (the former isn't a named technique in NGA, but one I commonly teach). I find a lot of that along the way - applications that are combinations of multiple "techniques". Other styles (like Judo) would give them separate names.


That's probably why we think similar about techniques. Now that I think of it, I wonder if this was intentionally done by the Jow Ga founder's brother.  I say this because the advantage of seeing things this way means we less likely to be tied down to what a sweep can be.  For example, the entire uppercut discussion, where to me an uppercut is a general concept of a punch, but to Hanzou it is a specific type of punch that is done only one way.

When I learn a technique I automatically just assume that there is more than one way to apply it or to do something similar in concept but different in application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I think the term "hook" may be better than the term "sweep". You are talking about a hook pulling motion. There is nothing wrong to say to hook your opponent's
> 
> - right leg from outside 45 degree up, or
> - left leg from inside horizontally.
> 
> Actually I like the simple term better. It's just there are different Chinese terms for these.
> 
> Boar, hog, swing, pig, ... are the same thing afterward.


Interestingly, we actually start with purposely NOT hooking the leg. It's a safer starting point and makes it less likely you end up going down in a tangle. So the Classical (the Osoto-gari version) is a swing, rather than a hook. Of course, after a point, we learn to use a hooking action when it adds something useful, but the sweep - the swinging momentum of the leg - continues to be the principle force in most variations.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Chinese is a very condense language.

切 (Qie) - Front cut (right leg hook the outside of the right leg 45 degree up),
刀 (Dao) - Inner sickle (right leg hook the inside of the right leg 45 degree up),
合 (He) - Inner hook (right leg hook the inside of the left leg horizontally),
削 (Xiao) - Sickle hook (right leg hook the outside of the left leg horizontally),


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> That's probably why we think similar about techniques. Now that I think of it, I wonder if this was intentionally done by the Jow Ga founder's brother.  I say this because the advantage of seeing things this way means we less likely to be tied down to what a sweep can be.  For example, the entire uppercut discussion, where to me an uppercut is a general concept of a punch, but to Hanzou it is a specific type of punch that is done only one way.
> 
> When I learn a technique I automatically just assume that there is more than one way to apply it or to do something similar in concept but different in application.


I think it can help, though it has another risk. In some NGA schools, they work hard not to vary from the Classical version of most techniques, so they end up limiting themselves more than I suspect the founder of NGA intended. I've looked at his selection of techniques (and at some of those he'd have had to decide to leave out) and it seems pretty clear that he was trying to cover a specific range of principles. Some of the techniques seem to be there solely to work on a principle (nobody is likely to ever find the specific technique a best solution), and others seem to cover a pretty broad swath (arm bar and leg sweep are both in that camp). I like to think my approach is closer to that of the founder. I have no reason to think that's actually true, but I like to think it, anyway.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> I think it can help, though it has another risk. In some NGA schools, they work hard not to vary from the Classical version of most techniques, so they end up limiting themselves more than I suspect the founder of NGA intended. I've looked at his selection of techniques (and at some of those he'd have had to decide to leave out) and it seems pretty clear that he was trying to cover a specific range of principles. Some of the techniques seem to be there solely to work on a principle (nobody is likely to ever find the specific technique a best solution), and others seem to cover a pretty broad swath (arm bar and leg sweep are both in that camp). I like to think my approach is closer to that of the founder. I have no reason to think that's actually true, but I like to think it, anyway.


If the goal was to actually use NGA, then I'm sure you are on the exact track as your founder.  Teach a student a basic jab and they will throw that jab the same way each time as long as they never use it.  Put that same student in a sparring environment and you'll see that jab evolve and change before your eyes.  Even if you don't teach the student, you will start seeing the student experiment with feints, double jabs, power jabs, set up jabs, and all of this will happen on it's own.  Even more changes occur when you spar outside of your system, as the attacks look foreign compared to what everyone trains inside the school.

The only way I could see the founder of NGA wanting it to remain static is if he was trying to preserve a historical representation.  This is also not bad as HEMA wishes they had a historical representation of what they do beyond piecing pictures together and looking at similar sword fighting from other systems. So have you thought of the new name of your fighting system?  Or are you keeping the same name?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> If the goal was to actually use NGA, then I'm sure you are on the exact track as your founder.  Teach a student a basic jab and they will throw that jab the same way each time as long as they never use it.  Put that same student in a sparring environment and you'll see that jab evolve and change before your eyes.  Even if you don't teach the student, you will start seeing the student experiment with feints, double jabs, power jabs, set up jabs, and all of this will happen on it's own.  Even more changes occur when you spar outside of your system, as the attacks look foreign compared to what everyone trains inside the school.
> 
> The only way I could see the founder of NGA wanting it to remain static is if he was trying to preserve a historical representation.  This is also not bad as HEMA wishes they had a historical representation of what they do beyond piecing pictures together and looking at similar sword fighting from other systems. So have you thought of the new name of your fighting system?  Or are you keeping the same name?


I've never come up with a name I like. To me, it's still NGA. I refer to it as a sub-style: Shojin-ryu Nihon Goshin Aikido. But that's only when I actually get around to using the name. It turns out, I don't do that very often - once had a student ask me a couple of months in what style I teach.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> So have you thought of the new name of your fighting system?  Or are you keeping the same name?


After I have integrated kick and punch into Chinese wrestling, I can't call it Chinese wrestling any more. I'll call it combat Chinese wrestling (combat Shuai Chiao, CSC, or just CC). Just hope 1000 years from today, someone will give me credit for this.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Some do when it's possible.  For example, in Jow Ga some of our upper cuts will look like boxing uppercuts but sometimes it won't because it's using the uppercut in a different manner. Which requires a different structure that will support the uppercut used in that manner.   For example,   The rear boxing upper cut is thrown with a different structure than the lead boxing uppercut.  You cannot expect the same structure to work for both variations.  In other words I literally cannot throw a lead uppercut with the same structure that I throw the rear upper cut.
> 
> So there is no way under the laws of physics and human anatomy that you can have the same structure for both.  The big wheel punches that use the upper cut will not work with the boxer version of the uppercut because the first hand will throw you off balance if you do it that way.  There is no once size fits all for an uppercut structure.



So again, you guys aren't adding new techniques to Jow Ga. You're attempting to emulate the original goals of the founder.



> I use "antiquated techniques" and I look far from a kick boxer.  Those who end up looking like kick boxers do so because they aren't trying to use the techniques that they train.  They abandoned the techniques and use what feels safe.



So those examples you showed of competitive Kung Fu are examples of people abandoning their techniques?



> Maybe they choose western boxing because that fits closely to what they currently know and how they currently punch.



The Chinese would choose western boxing over their native martial arts because it fits their fighting style better? Wouldn't it make more sense that boxing takes less time to learn, cuts out all of the form and weapon nonsense, and produces better results?



> I don't have to prove that it's better.  If you are getting Knocked out by a slap then it's irrelevant if it's better than an uppercut.   Because it's the slap that KOed you, not the uppercut.  If you hit me in the head with your forearm and I pass out, then it's totally irrelevant what is better.  It doesn't matter if professional fighters use it or not, because there I am knocked out on the ground because someone hit me in the head with a forearm.



In the conversation of which is the better method to produce a fighter, it definitely is relevant. Boxing continues to evolve while Jow Ga remains stagnant. That's a very important difference between the two. Obviously if you want to learn a nice historical discipline and learn a little Chinese terminology and history, there's nothing wrong with Jow Ga. However, if your goal is to learn how to fight, or to become a professional fighter, obviously boxing is the better alternative.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> So those examples you showed of competitive Kung Fu are examples of people abandoning their techniques?


I don't see an abandoning of technique.  They may not use all of the techniques they know but they do use some of them..
Shuai Jiao 




Long fist





half moon kick







Hanzou said:


> In the conversation of which is the better method to produce a fighter, it definitely is relevant.


This is why you don't learn anything.  You are always trying to put one thing as being better than another. 

Here's your boxing produces a better fighter.















.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't see an abandoning of technique.



I didn't say that, you did. You're the one who said them fighting like a kickboxer is the abandoning of technique.



> They may not use all of the techniques they know but they do use some of them..
> Shuai Jiao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long fist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> half moon kick



None of that looks any different than western wrestling or boxing except that last foot stomp to the head.



> This is why you don't learn anything.  You are always trying to put one thing as being better than another.
> 
> Here's your boxing produces a better fighter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Muay Thai incorporates western boxing. One of the top MT fighters in history was also an Olympic boxer.

But anyway we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, feel free to have the last word on this.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> Wrestling, Judo, Catch, and Sambo were all dying on a vine, but Bjj and MMA brought them all back to the forefront.


Citation needed. With the exception of Catch (which had mostly died out in the West and had moved to Japan), all of those were doing very well worldwide.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Citation needed. With the exception of Catch (which had mostly died out in the West and had moved to Japan), all of those were doing very well worldwide.


Judo certainly still seemed strong. If nothing else, Olympic competition puts it back in folks' minds every so often.


----------



## Hanzou

Tony Dismukes said:


> Citation needed. With the exception of Catch (which had mostly died out in the West and had moved to Japan), all of those were doing very well worldwide.



Worldwide sure, but in the states not so much.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Citation needed. With the exception of Catch (which had mostly died out in the West and had moved to Japan), all of those were doing very well worldwide.



Not necessarily from a spectator point of view.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tony Dismukes said:


> Citation needed


my new phrase


----------



## FriedRice

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Actually, I think the Kung Fu uppercut is better than the boxing uppercut for the following reasons.
> 
> - You use left arm to pull down your opponent's head, uppercut to his chin at the same time.
> - You use left hand to pull down your opponent's guard, borrow the counter force, your right hand then uppercut to his chin.
> - It integrates defense and offense into one motion.
> - This kind of "pull and punch" method can be integrated into the wrestling art much easier than the boxing uppercut.
> 
> 1. Boxing - a punch is a punch.
> 2. Kung Fu - a punch can be a pull by one hand and a punch by other hand, or a punch by one hand and then pull by the same hand.
> 
> In order to truly integrate the striking art with the wrestling art, that "pull" is important.
> 
> My guys have no boxing training. Their striking art came from the long fist system. They can do uppercut just like normal boxer does.
> 
> A head pulling (downward force) and uppercut (upward force) at the same time can be seen in this clip.




Nope, it's not a better uppercut....it's just another technique to uppercut.

This is just "dirty Boxing". It's not that Boxers don't know how to do this, it's just illegal in Boxing. But this is perfectly legal in Muay Thai and MMA, and is also used but why not ALL the time if you think it's so superior over a Boxing uppercut?  Once again, potentially millions of $$$$$$$ can be on the line in a UFC fight so they'd use it all the time if it was that awesome.

There are risks & rewards to everything in fighting. This uppercut you're showing, based on this video, is:

1.  Risking your main point of defense, which is the other hand guarding the head, to sloppily clinch the head for more power into the uppercut.

2. The other point of defense is to keep the chin tucked, and he ain't even doing that. 

3. The counter to this would be.....and this happens a lot in Muay Thai but with better techniques...it's called the "crash clinch" where you protect your own head w/1 guard and quickly slide/hop in for a 1/2 clinch, then you can elbow, uppercut, but better to knee and/or elbow......If my head gets pulled down & held down like this, then I really suck as a MT fighter....but I would immediately protect my face with my left hand as I'm expecting a knee to my face, which is much worse than this loopy uppercut.....and immediately throw an overhand right that's looping in like a haymaker to his temple as his left hand is down.  I could get hurt or he could get hurt = risks & rewards. He's in better control/position, but this head grabbing/clinching move rarely works on 2 fresh fighters starting out in round 1....you don't just let someone half clinch you like this.

4.  This is a low level, smoker fight and they're both tired....so it's understandable that this 1/2 clinch can be easily pulled off. But it doesn't prove at all that this is a better uppercut. It's almost like saying a Superman-punch is the best straight cross variation. Or the overhand right is better than both. They're all situational, but Superman-punches and throwing an uppercut this way, should be used sparingly as surprise moves and not replacing the fundamentals of a well executed, Western Boxing uppercut that's preferred by MMA fighters of the highest levels.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Nope, it's not a better uppercut....it's just another technique to uppercut.
> 
> This is just "dirty Boxing". It's not that Boxers don't know how to do this, it's just illegal in Boxing. But this is perfectly legal in Muay Thai and MMA, and is also used but why not ALL the time if you think it's so superior over a Boxing uppercut?  Once again, potentially millions of $$$$$$$ can be on the line in a UFC fight so they'd use it all the time if it was that awesome.
> 
> There are risks & rewards to everything in fighting. This uppercut you're showing, based on this video, is:
> 
> 1.  Risking your main point of defense, which is the other hand guarding the head, to sloppily clinch the head for more power into the uppercut.
> 
> 2. The other point of defense is to keep the chin tucked, and he ain't even doing that.
> 
> 3. The counter to this would be.....and this happens a lot in Muay Thai but with better techniques...it's called the "crash clinch" where you protect your own head w/1 guard and quickly slide/hop in for a 1/2 clinch, then you can elbow, uppercut, but better to knee and/or elbow......If my head gets pulled down & held down like this, then I really suck as a MT fighter....but I would immediately protect my face with my left hand as I'm expecting a knee to my face, which is much worse than this loopy uppercut.....and immediately throw an overhand right that's looping in like a haymaker to his temple as his left hand is down.  I could get hurt or he could get hurt = risks & rewards. He's in better control/position, but this head grabbing/clinching move rarely works on 2 fresh fighters starting out in round 1....you don't just let someone half clinch you like this.
> 
> 4.  This is a low level, smoker fight and they're both tired....so it's understandable that this 1/2 clinch can be easily pulled off. But it doesn't prove at all that this is a better uppercut. It's almost like saying a Superman-punch is the best straight cross variation. Or the overhand right is better than both. They're all situational, but Superman-punches and throwing an uppercut this way, should be used sparingly as surprise moves and not replacing the fundamentals of a well executed, Western Boxing uppercut that's preferred by MMA fighters of the highest levels.


I'm pretty ignorant of the finer points of boxing rules. What's illegal about it?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm pretty ignorant of the finer points of boxing rules. What's illegal about it?



Can't hold the head and hit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Can't hold the head and hit.


Thanks. I thought that might be it, but really didn't know.


----------



## TMA17

gpseymour said:


> Judo certainly still seemed strong. If nothing else, Olympic competition puts it back in folks' minds every so often.



From what I am told, Judo is still very popular worldwide as is wrestling.  BJJ is probably the fastest growing in the U.S.


----------



## Hanzou

TMA17 said:


> From what I am told, Judo is still very popular worldwide as is wrestling.  BJJ is probably the fastest growing in the U.S.



Yeah, Judo got eclipsed by wrestling in the states since it is readily available for free in every secondary school in the United States. There were even cases of wrestlers entering Judo competitions and winning handily. Unfortunately due to Judo's nature, wrestlers couldn't grow the sport because Judo has a set amount of tactics and movements and actively restrict wrestling techniques in competition.

Part of the reason Bjj exploded in the US was because former wrestlers flooded into Bjj gyms and their techniques and tactics were adopted by the Bjj community and allowed into competition. Bjj/MMA competition and instruction offers former high school and collegiate wrestlers employment opportunities after their high school/collegiate career is over.


----------



## TMA17

Makes total sense.  

If I had to rank the order of importance of the 3 aforementioned grappling arts, I'd put wrestling as the best base, followed by BJJ as an add-on or stand alone, then Judo.  I've watched youtube videos of Judokas holding their own against wrestlers, but I think wrestling is more effective in a broader sense, especially when not wearing much clothing.  Judo players have tremendous grip too and explosiveness.  In a fraction of a second your planted on the ground.  In winter time Judo would be most useful LOL.


----------



## Hanzou

TMA17 said:


> Makes total sense.
> 
> If I had to rank the order of importance of the 3 aforementioned grappling arts, I'd put wrestling as the best base, followed by BJJ as an add-on or stand alone, then Judo.  I've watched youtube videos of Judokas holding their own against wrestlers, but I think wrestling is more effective in a broader sense, especially when not wearing much clothing.  Judo players have tremendous grip too and explosiveness.  In a fraction of a second your planted on the ground.  In winter time Judo would be most useful LOL.



Yeah, I would start kids with wrestling at a young age (its safer than Judo), and then transition them over to Bjj in their teen years. Frankly I think Wrestling translates very well into how Bjj works, with Bjj's top positions working extremely well with the pressure tactics that wrestlers are used to doing. Bjj even offers No-gi grappling that allows wrestlers to grapple the way they're used to, making the transition from wrestling to competitive Bjj even easier.

I think in about a decade wresting and Bjj are going to blend to the point where we'll have a grappling art where wrestling will be the takedown and top game, while Bjj will be the bottom, submission, and escape game.

Some would argue that we're already at that point. I know I was constantly checking out wrestling vids on YT to get some tips on takedowns and top pressure.

I think Judo will continue just being Judo. I think that's just the way Judoka want it to be. It's certainly what Kano wanted it to be.


----------



## TMA17

I'm no expert but that sounds about right to me from everything I've read and have observed watching MMA etc.  Wrestling combined with BJJ is just fantastic.  If you can be decent at both you're going to be a beast.


----------



## Hanzou

TMA17 said:


> I'm no expert but that sounds about right to me from everything I've read and have observed watching MMA etc.  Wrestling combined with BJJ is just fantastic.  If you can be decent at both you're going to be a beast.



Yeah, no doubt. Most prominent BJJ players and MMA fighters recommend wrestling as a grappling base. That leaves the gates wide open for a better overall form of grappling to take shape. I wonder if it will remain being called BJJ in the long run.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I think in about a decade wresting and Bjj are going to blend to the point where we'll have a grappling art where wrestling will be the takedown and top game, while Bjj will be the bottom, submission, and escape game.
> 
> Some would argue that we're already at that point. I know I was constantly checking out wrestling vids on YT to get some tips on takedowns and top pressure.


Yeah, when I'm looking at takedown and control videos online, I sometimes can't tell whether it's wrestling or BJJ, unless they tell me or are wearing a gi. It's pretty cool to see two arts blending so well.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, Judo got eclipsed by wrestling in the states since it is readily available for free in every secondary school in the United States. There were even cases of wrestlers entering Judo competitions and winning handily. Unfortunately due to Judo's nature, wrestlers couldn't grow the sport because Judo has a set amount of tactics and movements and actively restrict wrestling techniques in competition.
> 
> Part of the reason Bjj exploded in the US was because former wrestlers flooded into Bjj gyms and their techniques and tactics were adopted by the Bjj community and allowed into competition. Bjj/MMA competition and instruction offers former high school and collegiate wrestlers employment opportunities after their high school/collegiate career is over.


Another issue there is that while wrestling is readily available in school, it's pretty tough to learn wrestling outside of school. So you got all these people who are great wrestlers, who no longer have any place to train, and not really anywhere to compete.


----------



## Hanzou

kempodisciple said:


> Another issue there is that while wrestling is readily available in school, it's pretty tough to learn wrestling outside of school. So you got all these people who are great wrestlers, who no longer have any place to train, and not really anywhere to compete.



Yep. Like I said, a lot of them wind up in Bjj or MMA. If they stick around long enough, they become competitors, instructors, and coaches.

At lower levels, No-gi Bjj competitions tend to attract a lot of ex-high school and college wrestlers.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, no doubt. Most prominent BJJ players and MMA fighters recommend wrestling as a grappling base. That leaves the gates wide open for a better overall form of grappling to take shape. I wonder if it will remain being called BJJ in the long run.


The most common counter used for single leg, or double legs is:

- double under hooks (for western wrestling).
- double hands back neck downward pulling (for Chinese wrestling).

What's the most common counter for single leg, or double legs used in BJJ?


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The most common counter used for single leg, or double legs is:
> 
> - double under hooks (for western wrestling).
> - double hands back neck downward pulling (for Chinese wrestling).
> 
> What's the most common counter for single leg, or double legs used in BJJ?



Guillotine.

(This is a really obscure shot at BJJ. because of their head outside singles.)


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Guillotine.
> 
> (This is a really obscure shot at BJJ. because of their head outside singles.)


It's also used in Chinese wrestling too.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

If we compare these 3 methods, IMO, the "double under hooks" may be the safest one to use. The timing is not that critical. As long as you put both hands in front of your knees, your opponent's hands can't reach to your leg/legs.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Yep. Like I said, a lot of them wind up in Bjj or MMA. If they stick around long enough, they become competitors, instructors, and coaches.
> 
> At lower levels, No-gi Bjj competitions tend to attract a lot of ex-high school and college wrestlers.


I think that has been another reason for BJJ's relatively fast progress - both in growth and in development.


----------



## TMA17

kempodisciple said:


> Another issue there is that while wrestling is readily available in school, it's pretty tough to learn wrestling outside of school. So you got all these people who are great wrestlers, who no longer have any place to train, and not really anywhere to compete.



There is a local guy near me I took 2 private wrestling classes with.  Worked on takedowns and sprawls, the very very basics.  He teaches mostly high school and said I could practice with them.  I decided against it and went into BJJ/Judo.  You're right, it's very hard to find wrestling once you're past high school/college. 

In many parts of the world though this is not the case....like Dagestan LOL.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The most common counter used for single leg, or double legs is:
> 
> - double under hooks (for western wrestling).
> - double hands back neck downward pulling (for Chinese wrestling).
> 
> What's the most common counter for single leg, or double legs used in BJJ?



Kimura takedown for single (don't know how common that is, but it works), and the Sprawl, Guillotine, or Guard for Double Leg.


----------



## dunc

For a masterclass in defending the single look at Roger Gracie vs Buchecha


----------

