# How important is fighting in the Martial Arts?



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

I hear a lot of people on these forums talk about how MA isn't about actual fighting, and I find that pretty puzzling. Sure, the arts can make you a better person in a variety of ways, but doesn't the entire concept of martial arts revolve around fighting? Some of the most revered figures in martial arts are revered because of their ability to fight or kill.

Would I have taken the time to read _A Book of Five Rings _if Musashi wasn't so proficient at killing people? Would I listen to Rickson Gracie's philosophy if he wasn't such a master in beating people up? Would I learn from an instructor that couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag? I'm forced to answer "no" to all three of those questions.

What do you think? How important is fighting (or the ability to fight) in the martial arts?


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 27, 2014)

Again with the martial arts = fighting = a duel (and that therfore full contact sparring must be the ultimate)?

The first twenty times this was explained to you it did not take, why bother with the twenty-first? Or how is this, I train an antiquated useless art that is nothing but tradition and will get me killed in an actual self defense situation, I admit it. Enjoy, I will dispose of the horse`s carcass now if you can just stop with the kicking thank you very much.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2014)

It is tricky though. If i wanted to win a fight in the most efficient method would shoot them. Yet i spend hours learning to punch people.

so there has to be more to ma than being the most effective kill monster.


----------



## Zero (Nov 27, 2014)

Well what are you encompassing in the term "fight" and what do you see that as meaning?  Is it simply squaring off against another opponent either in the ring or on the street (which would fit more with the regular meaning of "fight") or is this to also extend to a self-defence situation, ie someone tries to jump you and you have to act with maximum efficiency and speed in an altercation that may, hopefully (or not), be over in seconds or split seconds (rather than a more prolonged exchange)?

If an art had neither of those components, ie SD application or duelling, personally I would not be drawn to it and would question its worth or place as a "martial" art (but not its worth per se).  That said some styles I do see as very much martial arts but they have very limited application in today's world in either tournament or street fighting or SD.  I would perhaps put the likes of Iaido in this category as no one, outside of their club or home, gets to walk around much with a sword (although it would be more than unfortunate to be doing a little breaking and entry when the owner is in possession of their sword...) so the "chance" to be able to put that into real practice would seem slim.  Don't get me wrong I have full respect and appreciation for iaido and from my karate practice (compared to iaido) basic sword work, but I would not put that high on the list if SD or "fighting" in the modern environment was my main focus...


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

drop bear said:


> It is tricky though. If i wanted to win a fight in the most efficient method would shoot them. Yet i spend hours learning to punch people.
> 
> so there has to be more to ma than being the most effective kill monster.



Not really. There are benefits to knowing how to fight and possibly kill without a weapon. For example, you can't always carry a gun, you could run out of ammunition, or you can't reach your firearm in time to stop an attack.


----------



## Blindside (Nov 27, 2014)

To me martial arts is certainly about learning to fight, either in a duel or for a self-defense situation.  Now I will say that I don't do martial arts because I have to learn how to fight, I do it because I enjoy the process of learning and challenging myself, but without the fight aspects I could just as easily pick another hobby.


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2014)

People,train for a variety of reasons, and some martial arts are known to be of limited practical use for self defense.   My opinion is that, if one is honest about what he is tracking, and students are honest with the,selves about what they are learning, no harm done.


For example, a sport bjj guy learns a lot of valuable skills, but as the emphasis is on ground fighting, that person should acknowledge the gaps for self defense.   

I honestly believe the issue with some is that they believe they are learning skills which they are not.   And worse, they teach these things to others.


----------



## Shai Hulud (Nov 27, 2014)

It depends on your goals, or what you want to get out of your practice. Some people will practice Taijiquan or Aikido because they find the esoterics or the cultural facet fascinating. Some people will practice Judo, TKD or BJJ because they see it as a way to get fit and see it as a sport they can excel in, and others will practice Krav Maga or Systema for street self-defense. 

And even then, there are a lot of variables involved. I'm pretty sure we all want to get different things out of our MA's. I practiced Keysi to be proficient in street-fighting, and now I'm gravitating toward Thai kickboxing, BJJ and boxing as a foundation for my desire to pursue the sport of Mixed Martial Arts. 

It's really subjective. It depends on what the practitioner wants to get out of it.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 27, 2014)

Again, my own dojo _kun:

*Not* to kill.
*Not* to harm the harmless, or hurt the innocent.
*Not* to disgrace my arts, my teacher,  or myself.
_
Martial arts, in a modern context- the *budo-* are about *not* "fighting."

The martial sports, martial sciences, and self-defense? Maybe about "fighting."

Depends upon what you mean by "fighting," really....


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 27, 2014)

Fighting is not at all important to Martial Arts. It is certainly important to some individuals, but not to the study of the arts themselves.

It also depends on how you define fighting. From your other posts here, it's clear that you consider sporting events fighting. While it is common enough to see the word "fight" used for competitive events, I do not think they are the same. If we are competing, what I am willing to do to win is limited. If we are fighting, it is not. If the only way I can win a fight is to kill you, then that is what I will (try to) do.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 27, 2014)

Fighting and self defense are not the same thing.  I never fight anyone.  I do use my skills in defense of myself and others but I don't fight.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> Fighting is not at all important to Martial Arts. It is certainly important to some individuals, but not to the study of the arts themselves.
> 
> It also depends on how you define fighting. From your other posts here, it's clear that you consider sporting events fighting. While it is common enough to see the word "fight" used for competitive events, I do not think they are the same. If we are competing, what I am willing to do to win is limited. If we are fighting, it is not. If the only way I can win a fight is to kill you, then that is what I will (try to) do.



No, I consider any conflict between individuals or groups as fighting. Sporting events certainly qualify, but so does someone attacking someone else in a bar or a pub, or someone attacking someone else in "da streetz".

You say what you would do in a fight isn't limited. You sure about that? Wouldn't your response be potentially tempered by your local laws?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Fighting and self defense are not the same thing.  I never fight anyone.  I do use my skills in defense of myself and others but I don't fight.



Defense is part of fighting.



Zero said:


> Well what are you encompassing in the term "fight" and what do you see that as meaning?  Is it simply squaring off against another opponent either in the ring or on the street (which would fit more with the regular meaning of "fight") or is this to also extend to a self-defence situation, ie someone tries to jump you and you have to act with maximum efficiency and speed in an altercation that may, hopefully (or not), be over in seconds or split seconds (rather than a more prolonged exchange)?
> 
> If an art had neither of those components, ie SD application or duelling, personally I would not be drawn to it and would question its worth or place as a "martial" art (but not its worth per se).  That said some styles I do see as very much martial arts but they have very limited application in today's world in either tournament or street fighting or SD.  I would perhaps put the likes of Iaido in this category as no one, outside of their club or home, gets to walk around much with a sword (although it would be more than unfortunate to be doing a little breaking and entry when the owner is in possession of their sword...) so the "chance" to be able to put that into real practice would seem slim.  Don't get me wrong I have full respect and appreciation for iaido and from my karate practice (compared to iaido) basic sword work, but I would not put that high on the list if SD or "fighting" in the modern environment was my main focus...



Well I would argue that one learns Iaido to know how to better use (or fight with) the sword.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 27, 2014)

We are all different. Different wants, needs, desires, passions.

People come to the martial arts for many reasons. Learning to fight is only one reason. I have students who train only because they enjoy the training, the exercises (physical and mental) and fighting has nothing to do with it. I have some who come simply because it is a positive environment, a place they can get away from the negativity of their lives. A place where they are dealing with high energy people with positive attitudes because they aren’t getting it in other areas of their life and it has nothing to do with fighting. I have those who come for self confidence, self esteem, for anger release and management, for self control, focus, attribute development like balance and hand eye coordination. These are just some examples that are all needed in being a good fighter but not about fighting.

Of course there are those who come to the martial arts because of the fighting in form of fight back self-defense and/or competition.

We do use fighting actions, moves, drills, exercises to help everyone who trains in the martial arts however, in my experience of almost 45 years in the martial arts few are actually there for the fighting. The ones who are there for the fighting and who diligently train and practice as a fighter become good at fighting. The others who stay and who diligently train and practice as a martial artist become good martial artists and along the way can also become good at fighting ‘if’ fighting is emphasized with in the training.


----------



## Zero (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Well I would argue that one learns Iaido to know how to better use (or fight with) the sword.


Agreed but how often does one get to fight (I mean really fight) or kill someone with a sword?  For the most part these days I'd say not ever, never. Now I am talking from ignorance here, so may have it completely wrong, as am not an iaido practitioner but I think iaido students are studying iaido for reasons other than to learn practical self defence or to be a better fighter.


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2014)

I agree with those who assert that self defense is not fighting.   But, I also think that some people think they're learning to fight but are not.   Some think they're learning self defense, but are instead learning to perform perfect kata.   Some think they're learning to fight, but are instead learning to compete within a very specific rule set.


----------



## Zero (Nov 27, 2014)

Steve said:


> I agree with those who assert that self defense is not fighting.   But, I also think that some people think they're learning to fight but are not.   Some think they're learning self defense, but are instead learning to perform perfect kata.   Some think they're learning to fight, but are instead learning to compete within a very specific rule set.


You hit the nail square on the head.  What amazes me is that so many are in this situation but do not realise it.  It seems odd that fighting and SD can be such alien and unrecognisable concepts to so many people, although maybe that is a good thing?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

I think people are misunderstanding the question of the thread. I'm not asking how important fighting is to individual practitioners, I'm asking how important fighting is to the arts themselves. I.e. if you remove the fighting component from the arts, are they still "martial arts" or something else entirely?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 27, 2014)

Some Kata is learning self-defense.  I could teach someone a single kata and if they train that kata they are learning self defense.  I get what your saying but Kata can teach you self-defense very effectively


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I think people are misunderstanding the question of the thread. I'm not asking how important fighting is to individual practitioners, I'm asking how important fighting is to the arts themselves. I.e. if you remove the fighting component from the arts, are they still "martial arts" or something else entirely?


What are fighting components?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> What are fighting components?



Compare Goju Ryu to Tae Bo. One has a fighting component, the other doesn't.


----------



## Buka (Nov 27, 2014)

To me - Martial Arts are a lot of things, and a lot of those things help more people than I could possibly name, and in more ways than some people might believe. But fighting is the cornerstone, the rock the church is built upon. 

In my experience, 90% of everyone who ever walked into a dojo, any dojo in any part of the world, wants to know how to fight. I feel once they are there they learn a lot about themselves and about other things as well. Sometimes that initial want of "learning to fight" takes a back seat, and that's a good thing, to me, anyway.

But it all starts with fighting and honor.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Compare Goju Ryu to Tae Bo. One has a fighting component, the other doesn't.


I have no idea what Tae bo is.  Isn't it an exercise video?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> I have no idea what Tae bo is.  Isn't it an exercise video?



Yeah, its aerobics, not martial arts. My point is that no one in a Tae Bo class is talking about punching or kicking someone in the face. However, that conversation is occurring in the Goju Ryu dojo. In fact, just about everything you do in that dojo is learning how to become more efficient and better at doing damage to someone.

Which is why I find it strange that some don't view "fighting" as an important component of their art.



Buka said:


> To me - Martial Arts are a lot of things, and a lot of those things help more people than I could possibly name, and in more ways than some people might believe. But fighting is the cornerstone, the rock the church is built upon.
> 
> In my experience, 90% of everyone who ever walked into a dojo, any dojo in any part of the world, wants to know how to fight. I feel once they are there they learn a lot about themselves and about other things as well. Sometimes that initial want of "learning to fight" takes a back seat, and that's a good thing, to me, anyway.
> 
> *But it all starts with fighting and honor.*



Agreed.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> No, I consider any conflict between individuals or groups as fighting. Sporting events certainly qualify, but so does someone attacking someone else in a bar or a pub, or someone attacking someone else in "da streetz".



You can define words however you like. But it makes communication difficult. May I mumble dogface to the banana patch?



Hanzou said:


> You say what you would do in a fight isn't limited.



That is correct.



Hanzou said:


> You sure about that?



Of course I am. If you knew me at all, you'd know that one of my characteristics is that if I am not pretty damned certain about something, I keep my mouth shut, or make it clear that what I am saying is a guess or non-fact-based opinion.
And unlike most, I have actually been attacked by someone actively trying to kill me, so I know how I would respond.



Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't your response be potentially tempered by your local laws?



No. My response will be based entirely upon my estimation of the threat posed by the attacker(s). If I think they can be subdued without injury, then that's what I try to do. If I think they can be subdued with minor injuries, then that is what I try to do. If I think they pose a lethal threat, then I'm going to do my very best to kill them first. That's fighting.


----------



## Zero (Nov 27, 2014)

Funnily enough but I think some of those Tae Boe types actually think they are doing some form of MA.  I had a mate who was doing "_body combat_" in some commercial gym for a while and I remember him going on about how he would blast some guy with his rear elbow strikes if he gave him any trouble, I almost choked trying not to laugh in my good friend's face.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 27, 2014)

So are you saying Tae bo  should be considered a martial art?  I think the fact you learn punching and kicking in a fitness class proves there is more to Martial arts then "fighting"


----------



## elder999 (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Well I would argue that one learns Iaido to know how to better use (or fight with) the sword.


 
You'd be wrong, though.

One learns _iai*jutsu*_ to better their fighting with a sword, among other things.

One learns _iai*do*_ to perfect their personality.


----------



## Zero (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Compare Goju Ryu to Tae Bo. One has a fighting component, the other doesn't.


Is there a non-fighting component of goju ryu?  I'm still struggling to see where the fighting component ends and something else takes off.  Is it not all geared towards fighting? Even the body conditioning aspects?  Are they not there to make you better conditioned to fight?


----------



## Zero (Nov 27, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> So are you saying Tae bo  should be considered a martial art?  I think the fact you learn punching and kicking in a fitness class proves there is more to Martial arts then "fighting"


I don't think this was angled at me but if so, I don't see TB as an MA in any way, nor that body combat stuff in the gyms - I see those as a great way of teaching guys and gals how to throw a punch poorly at best and break their wrists!

That said, even with next to no skill, a fight is still a fight.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> You can define words however you like. But it makes communication difficult. May I mumble dogface to the banana patch?



The definition of fighting I gave is the English definition of the word.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

elder999 said:


> You'd be wrong, though.
> 
> One learns _iai*jutsu*_ to better their fighting with a sword, among other things.
> 
> One learns _iai*do*_ to perfect their personality.



So how exactly is Iaido a martial art?

I mean, I can perfect my personality by learning a tea ceremony.



Zero said:


> Is there a non-fighting component of goju ryu?  I'm still struggling to see where the fighting component ends and something else takes off.  Is it not all geared towards fighting? Even the body conditioning aspects?  Are they not there to make you better conditioned to fight?



I would say yes.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So how exactly is Iaido a martial art?


What's your definition of a martial art


----------



## elder999 (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So how exactly is Iaido a martial art?
> 
> I mean, I can perfect my personality by learning a tea ceremony.
> 
> .


 
*Exactly!!*


----------



## K-man (Nov 27, 2014)

I don't have time for a detailed post just now but I have read and reread this thread. It is apparent that there are two positions in this discussion. Those who understand martial arts and those who don't. 

If you are training for the ring you are training a martial sport. In this situation your 'fighting' and ability to compete within a given rule set is obviously paramount. You will be fighting on a regular basis but your time in a martial sport is limited. Injury and age will put an end to your career.

People train a martial art for any number of reasons. Even if I was training BJJ, learning to fight would only be a very minor part of it. Very few people I train or train with get into fights, yet they turn up day after day, week after week, year after year. Some here on MT have been training for over forty years, many over thirty and many of them probably have never been in a real fight. So why do they keep training? For all sorts of reasons, but you can bet your life, fighting is not the main reason for them training.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> What's your definition of a martial art



The dictionary's definition of Martial Art;

*martial art*
_noun_
: any one of several forms of fighting and self-defense (such as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as sports

Martial art - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So how exactly is Iaido a martial art?
> 
> I mean, I can perfect my personality by learning a tea ceremony.
> 
> ...



the top argument doesn't work. Running is not fitness because i can get fit swimming?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The dictionary's definition of Martial Art;
> 
> *martial art*
> _noun_
> ...



Oxford.

Definition of fight in English:

verb (past and past participle fought /fɔːt/)



1 [no object] Take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons:


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2014)

K-man said:


> I don't have time for a detailed post just now but I have read and reread this thread. It is apparent that there are two positions in this discussion. Those who understand martial arts and those who don't.
> 
> If you are training for the ring you are training a martial sport. In this situation your 'fighting' and ability to compete within a given rule set is obviously paramount. You will be fighting on a regular basis but your time in a martial sport is limited. Injury and age will put an end to your career.
> 
> People train a martial art for any number of reasons. Even if I was training BJJ, learning to fight would only be a very minor part of it. Very few people I train or train with get into fights, yet they turn up day after day, week after week, year after year. Some here on MT have been training for over forty years, many over thirty and many of them probably have never been in a real fight. So why do they keep training? For all sorts of reasons, but you can bet your life, fighting is not the main reason for them training.



we have already hit the " you don't understand the real martial arts"?


----------



## Danny T (Nov 27, 2014)

*Fight*

: to use weapons or physical force to try to hurt someone, to defeat an enemy, etc. : to struggle in battle or physical combat
: to be involved in (a battle, struggle, etc.) involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons.

*Fighting *
would be performing the above.

*Conflict *
: a struggle for power, property, etc.
: strong disagreement between people, groups, etc., that results in angry argument
: a difference that prevents agreement : disagreement between ideas, feelings, etc.

These definitions are from Webster’s Dictionary

All fighting is conflict but conflict isn’t necessarily fighting.

In that we here have often been in disagreement and have been in conflict as we argued our points we have yet to fight.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

drop bear said:


> the top argument doesn't work. Running is not fitness because i can get fit swimming?



Uh what? I'm saying that I wouldn't consider Iaido or the tea ceremony martial arts because they develop your "personality", not fighting ability.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

Danny T said:


> *Fight*
> 
> : to use weapons or physical force to try to hurt someone, to defeat an enemy, etc. : to struggle in battle or physical combat
> : to be involved in (a battle, struggle, etc.) involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons.
> ...



Self defense, combat sports, etc. (i.e. pretty much the entirety of martial arts) fits perfectly into that definition of "fight".


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Uh what? I'm saying that I wouldn't consider Iaido or the tea ceremony martial arts because they develop your "personality", not fighting ability.



see we are playing around with a lot of really vague concepts. Iaido is still swinging a sword around. Boxing can help develop personality and the tea ceremony is supposed to prepare your mind to better kill people.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Uh what? I'm saying that I wouldn't consider Iaido or the tea ceremony martial arts because they develop your "personality", not fighting ability.


 
I've been in a few iaido dojo from time to time, and I've never seen anyone "fighting." Strange.......

From the webpage of the _Nishi Kaigan Iaido Dojo 西海岸居合道道場 _, in San Fransisco:



> "The finest blade stays in the scabbard"
> The above expression means that *the goal of Iaido is to develop a mind in harmony with itself and the world*. By controlling the sword, you control yourself. By controlling yourself, you are more able to control the situation you are in and you will ultimately choose a peaceful way of acting.


 
(Though I agree with his statement about the goal of iaido, I don't think that's quite  what _katsujinken_..) means......)


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

drop bear said:


> see we are playing around with a lot of really vague concepts. Iaido is still swinging a sword around. Boxing can help develop personality and the tea ceremony is supposed to prepare your mind to better kill people.



Wouldn't that be a pretty broad application though? Sure you can develop a better personality from boxing, but that isn't its primary purpose. Boxing's training is designed to make you a better boxer period. Developing a good personality from training is a side effect, not the goal.

Just like getting tapped out constantly in Bjj makes you a better person because it breaks down your ego. However, that isn't the primary goal of Bjj training, or tapping out, its merely a side effect of it.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't that be a pretty broad application though? Sure you can develop a better personality from boxing, but that isn't its primary purpose. Boxing's training is designed to make you a better boxer period. Developing a good personality from training is a side effect, not the goal.



it is vague isn't it?

boxing in seal team six is geared towards fighting skill. Boxing outreach programs for indigenous youth geared towards better personality.

is one a martial art and not the other?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

drop bear said:


> it is vague isn't it?
> 
> boxing in seal team six is geared towards fighting skill. Boxing outreach programs for indigenous youth geared towards better personality.
> 
> is one a martial art and not the other?



Actually its not vague at all. Boxing itself is a martial art. If you're practicing boxing without the fighting components then you're not doing a martial art, you're doing an activity derived from a martial art.

Just like Tae Bo.


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2014)

I'm completely lost.  Is BJJ a martial art?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 27, 2014)

I guess I dont understand what fighting components are


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 27, 2014)

Steve said:


> I'm completely lost.  Is BJJ a martial art?


Only if you do it to fight


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

Steve said:


> I'm completely lost.  Is BJJ a martial art?



Bjj fits the definition of martial art;



> *martial art*
> _noun_
> : any one of several forms of fighting and self-defense (such as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as sports



So I would say yes.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 27, 2014)

Self defense, combat sports, etc. (i.e. pretty much the entirety of martial arts) fits perfectly into that definition of "fight".

Self defense:
: the act of defending yourself, your property, etc.
: skills that make you capable of protecting yourself during an attack

Locking your windows and doors at you home or on your vehicle is self defense. Where is the fighting in that? Where I live we have hurricanes and floods. When one is about to happen I board up my house and leave taking my family out of harms way. That is self defense. Where is the Martial Art in that?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

Danny T said:


> Self defense, combat sports, etc. (i.e. pretty much the entirety of martial arts) fits perfectly into that definition of "fight".
> 
> Self defense:
> : the act of defending yourself, your property, etc.
> ...



So in your martial arts class you're learning how to lock your windows and board up your house?

I'd ask for my money back. 

In all seriousness, you know what I'm talking about. Let's stop with the semantic games shall we?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So in your martial arts class you're learning how to lock your windows and board up your house?


yep and I teach other defense related things  like park near street lights, walk to your car at night with keys in your hand ready to get in.  if you think someone if following you dont go home and call 911 ect


> I'd ask for my money back.


Id never allow you in my class so no worries



> In all seriousness, you know what I'm talking about. Let's stop with the semantic games shall we?


no in all seriousness wedont


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Self defense, combat sports, etc. (i.e. pretty much the entirety of martial arts) fits perfectly into that definition of "fight".



I have done a fair bit of competing. I have never done it with the intent to harm my opponent. Nor are they my enemy.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 27, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> I have done a fair bit of competing. I have never done it with the intent to harm my opponent. Nor are they my enemy.


 
Back in the day, when I started competing in Japanese style bareknuckle knockout tournaments, my intent *was* to harm my opponent. Took about my first match for that to change, though.

After that, my goal was to keep my head on my shoulders and my body standing upright..... (Hey, here's
some feed back for our hosts: these smileys *suck.*)


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> I have done a fair bit of competing. I have never done it with the intent to harm my opponent. Nor are they my enemy.



That's only two of the four definitions provided.

Also opponent is a synonym for enemy.


----------



## K-man (Nov 27, 2014)

drop bear said:


> we have already hit the " you don't understand the real martial arts"?


Of course by adding the extra word you did, you have changed the whole meaning. Do you agree that there are martial arts and there is martial sport and that there is a small overlap?


----------



## K-man (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The dictionary's definition of Martial Art;
> 
> *martial art*
> _noun_
> ...


So by this definition any system that is not widely practised as a sport is not a martial art but anything involving fighting is, as long as it is widely practised as a sport. Hmm! That's strange. I no longer practise a martial art by this definition.

Now 'Self Defence' is a martial art according to this definition but 'self defence' doesn't actually exist.  Nobody from a self defence background has ever rocked up to the UFC as far as I'm aware.

I was under the impression that self defence was the legal term used to justify the violence your perpetrated in defending yourself, your family and friends or your property. Interesting that it is now a bone fide martial art. For those who have never seen 'real' self defence in action, here is a bit from the self defence world championships.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 27, 2014)

K-man said:


> So by this definition any system that is not widely practised as a sport is not a martial art but anything involving fighting is, as long as it is widely practised as a sport. Hmm! That's strange. I no longer practise a martial art by this definition.
> 
> Now 'Self Defence' is a martial art according to this definition but 'self defence' doesn't actually exist.  Nobody from a self defence background has ever rocked up to the UFC as far as I'm aware.
> 
> I was under the impression that self defence was the legal term used to justify the violence your perpetrated in defending yourself, your family and friends or your property. Interesting that it is now a bone fide martial art. For those who have never seen 'real' self defence in action, here is a bit from the self defence world championships.


And this is why understanding the definitions and semantics are important in communication.


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2014)

K-man said:


> So by this definition any system that is not widely practised as a sport is not a martial art but anything involving fighting is, as long as it is widely practised as a sport. Hmm! That's strange. I no longer practise a martial art by this definition.
> 
> Now 'Self Defence' is a martial art according to this definition but 'self defence' doesn't actually exist.  Nobody from a self defence background has ever rocked up to the UFC as far as I'm aware.
> 
> I was under the impression that self defence was the legal term used to justify the violence your perpetrated in defending yourself, your family and friends or your property. Interesting that it is now a bone fide martial art. For those who have never seen 'real' self defence in action, here is a bit from the self defence world championships.


whatnmakes that real and mma not real?


----------



## K-man (Nov 27, 2014)

Steve said:


> whatnmakes that real and mma not real?


What makes what real and where did MMA even cop a mention?

The only reference to MMA in the entire thread is in the post below.



Shai Hulud said:


> I practiced Keysi to be proficient in street-fighting, and *now I'm gravitating toward Thai kickboxing, BJJ and boxing as a foundation for my desire to pursue the sport of Mixed Martial Arts.*


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2014)

K-man said:


> What makes what real and where did MMA even cop a mention?
> 
> The only reference to MMA in the entire thread is in the post below.


Okay.   What makes that real and anything else not real?  Why is that real self defense?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man (Nov 27, 2014)

What is "that"?


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2014)

K-man said:


> What is "that"?


You're example of real self defense, in the video you posted.  Why are you being coy?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man (Nov 27, 2014)

Not being coy. I honestly had no idea what you were talking about.

If you are going to quote me don't change the context. I put the real in quotation marks .... 'real'. That indicates irony or a different meaning to the usual. 

My reason for displaying the video of the International Self Defence Championships is because I consider that an oxymoron, yet by the dictionary definition it is a martial art.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2014)

K-man said:


> Of course by adding the extra word you did, you have changed the whole meaning. Do you agree that there are martial arts and there is martial sport and that there is a small overlap?



not really. I think the definition would be as limiting as hanzus fighting and non fighting martial arts.

but i know guys who do kyokashin.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 27, 2014)

drop bear said:


> but i know guys who do kyokashin.



So do I....


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Actually its not vague at all. Boxing itself is a martial art. If you're practicing boxing without the fighting components then you're not doing a martial art, you're doing an activity derived from a martial art.
> 
> Just like Tae Bo.



so if you box but don't compete?

is sparring fighting?
is competing without striking a fight? It is certainly not the term grapplers use.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

K-man said:


> So by this definition any system that is not widely practised as a sport is not a martial art but anything involving fighting is, as long as it is widely practised as a sport. Hmm! That's strange. I no longer practise a martial art by this definition.



No, what the definition is saying is that the majority of martial arts practiced today are practiced as and are generally considered sports. It isn't saying that ALL martial arts are sports, or practiced as such.



> Now 'Self Defence' is a martial art according to this definition but 'self defence' doesn't actually exist.  Nobody from a self defence background has ever rocked up to the UFC as far as I'm aware.



No, self defense is considered an aspect of the martial arts.

As for someone from a self defense background performing well in the UFC; Nearly all the base arts of MMA (Bjj, TKD, Karate, Muay Thai, etc.) state that they offer self defense to their practitioners.


----------



## K-man (Nov 27, 2014)

drop bear said:


> not really. I think the definition would be as limiting as hanzus fighting and non fighting martial arts.
> 
> but i know guys who do kyokashin.


So what is Kyokushin?  I would consider it from it's origins to be a martial art but for many of its practitioners it is a martial sport, just as could be said for Shotokan or Goju Kai. Therefore it is one that is in the overlap. 

In each of those styles of karate, if you are going to compete then you will have to spar to obtain the skill set you need for the arena you are competing in. If you aren't going to compete but you still wish to train in any of the three named styles your focus will be different. Because it is part of the training you will still spar according to the system you are training but I would suggest that that type of sparring doesn't have a lot to do with the major focus your training and it has little to do with any fighting you would find on the street.

Remember that fighting and non-fighting are subject to definition. Once you throw testing into the equation it all gets mixed up, hence the debate. Reality would suggest that we are all much closer than would appear on the surface of the discussion. The arguement only comes through the definition.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

drop bear said:


> so if you box but don't compete?



Are you still punching people in the face? Then you're still performing the fighting components, even if you're not competing.



> is sparring fighting?



Depends on the sparring.



> is competing without striking a fight? It is certainly not the term grapplers use.



Yes, since not every fight involves nor requires striking.


----------



## K-man (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> No, what the definition is saying is that the majority of martial arts practiced today are practiced as and are generally considered sports. It isn't saying that ALL martial arts are sports, or practiced as such.
> 
> 
> No, self defense is considered an aspect of the martial arts.
> ...



Now you have qualified your definition. The definition you provided doesn't mention "majority" and says they "are widely practised as sports", nothing to do with "generally considered". 

Now we have had much discussion on what is and what isn't self defence.  I think is is absolutely ludicrous to claim that the people training in MMA have come from a self defence background. Many come from a traditional background but very few schools teach self defence. So is self defence an aspect of martial arts? Certainly not always and certainly much less than you are giving it credit for.



Hanzou said:


> The dictionary's definition of Martial Art;
> 
> *martial art*
> _noun_
> ...


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2014)

K-man said:


> Not being coy. I honestly had no idea what you were talking about.
> 
> If you are going to quote me don't change the context. I put the real in quotation marks .... 'real'. That indicates irony or a different meaning to the usual.
> 
> My reason for displaying the video of the International Self Defence Championships is because I consider that an oxymoron, yet by the dictionary definition it is a martial art.


Oh for Petes sake.  I thought it was a simp,e question, in context.   You said something about a video you posted being "real self defense."  I was curious what distinguishes that from any other sport, ie MMA, which you are adamant is not self defense, real or otherwise.   

Had you explained your comment instead of being coy, we could have saved a little time.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

K-man said:


> Now you have qualified your definition. The definition you provided doesn't mention "majority" and says they "are widely practised as sports", nothing to do with "generally considered".



The term "widely" means generally considered. They're generally considered as such because the majority of people who practice martial arts practice them as sports.



> Now we have had much discussion on what is and what isn't self defence.  I think is is absolutely ludicrous to claim that the people training in MMA have come from a self defence background. Many come from a traditional background but very few schools teach self defence. So is self defence an aspect of martial arts? Certainly not always and certainly much less than you are giving it credit for.



You think its ludicrous to claim that Karate dojos, Muay Thai gyms, Bjj schools, and TKD dojangs advertise themselves as places where one can learn self defense? They most certainly do. Additionally, many MMA gyms advertise themselves as places to learn self defense as well. If that's their belief, who am I to argue?


----------



## K-man (Nov 27, 2014)

Steve said:


> Oh for Petes sake.  I thought it was a simp,e question, in context.   You said something about a video you posted being "real self defense."  I was curious what distinguishes that from any other sport, ie MMA, which you are adamant is not self defense, real or otherwise.
> 
> Had you explained your comment instead of being coy, we could have saved a little time.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Perhaps if you read my posts carefully you would be so confused. Even now you can't get it right. I posted 'real' self defence, not 'real self defence' and then you have put more of your words as mine in your bit about MMA, which wasn't even part of the discussion.

Why do I have to explain simple statements. I thought English was your first language. I am not being coy and your terminology is offensive.


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2014)

Oh brother.


----------



## K-man (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The term "widely" means generally considered. They're generally considered as such because the majority of people who practice martial arts practice them as sports.


Not in any dictionary I've seen. It's your interpretation perhaps but certainly not your definition.




Hanzou said:


> You think its ludicrous to claim that Karate dojos, Muay Thai gyms, Bjj schools, and TKD dojangs advertise themselves as places where one can learn self defense? They most certainly do. Additionally, many MMA gyms advertise themselves as places to learn self defense as well. If that's their belief, who am I to argue?


No, I don't think it ludicrous for any of those schools to advertise teaching or learning self defence if in fact they do provide that training. I'm not going to be going around checking on them any time soon to see if they live up to their advertising. But my comment was In regard to potential cage fighters training MMA and claiming they come from a self defence background.  Any bet, if you asked a guy from Kyokushin about his background he will say Kyokushin, not self defence.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

K-man said:


> Not in any dictionary I've seen. It's your interpretation perhaps but certainly not your definition.



Actually re-reading the definition, it says that martial arts are "widely practiced as sports". So what's your issue exactly? In either case, the definition never stated that ALL martial arts are sports, and Goju Ryu fits just fine within the definition provided.



> No, I don't think it ludicrous for any of those schools to advertise teaching or learning self defence if in fact they do provide that training. I'm not going to be going around checking on them any time soon to see if they live up to their advertising. But my comment was In regard to potential cage fighters training MMA and claiming they come from a self defence background.  Any bet, if you asked a guy from Kyokushin about his background he will say Kyokushin, not self defence.



I'm also sure that he would say that he is able to defend himself because of his training in Kyokushin. Which is exactly what the definition is saying; Self defense is an attribute of the martial arts.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 27, 2014)

"Self defense is an attribute of the martial arts."

Fight back skill sets are an attribute of many of the martial arts and these same skills can be utilized in some self-defense situations.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 27, 2014)

Danny T said:


> "Self defense is an attribute of the martial arts."
> 
> Fight back skill sets are an attribute of many of the martial arts and these same skills can be utilized in some self-defense situations.



Isn't "fight back skill" simply another way to say "self defense"?

Anyway, I have yet to run across a martial art that doesn't prop itself up as a method of self defense.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Uh what? I'm saying that I wouldn't consider Iaido or the tea ceremony martial arts because they develop your "personality", not fighting ability.



Consider then.

This webpage has a bio of the *Takeyuki Hidefusa Miura, *grandmaster of the Jikishin kai, student of the 18th grandmaster of Muso-jikiden eishin ryu, and present grandmaster of one line of eishin-ryu.    A man recognized throughout the world (of such things, anyway) and by the Japanese government, as a superlative master of iaido.
'
As near as I can tell, he's never been in a duel, a fight or even a "sparring match" in his entire life.

How "important is fighting" to him, then? Is what he does "martial art?"

I


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2014)

Is rugby a martial art?

it includes fighting.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 27, 2014)

[QUOTE="Hanzou]Isn't "fight back skill" simply another way to say "self defense"?

Anyway, I have yet to run across a martial art that doesn't prop itself up as a method of self defense.[/QUOTE]
Unless they are being utilized in a non self defense action.
There is much more to self defense than fighting.
I've stated in the past fighting can be a form of self defense but not all fighting is self defense and not all self-defense is fighting.

Is running a martial art? No, however running in the proper situation is a form of self defense.

Is swimming a martial art?  No. However swimming skills in the proper situation is a form of self-defense.

Is defensive driving, evasive driving, or tactical driving a martial art? No, however it is self-defense.

Is verbal and body language communication a martial art? No, however it is a major element in certain self-defense situations.

Is conflict resolution a martial art? No, however it is a major part of self-defense.

Do you understand what I'm saying or should I continue with examples of self defense that has nothing to do with fighting.


----------



## K-man (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Actually re-reading the definition, it says that martial arts are "widely practiced as sports". So what's your issue exactly? In either case, the definition never stated that ALL martial arts are sports, and Goju Ryu fits just fine within the definition provided.


You see, I would say that that definition is incorrect. It is a layman's perception of the martial arts. I would suggest looking at a list of martial arts to see how many of them are purely sport (eg boxing), predominantly sport (eg Judo) or not sport (eg Krav) and you will find the majority are not sport.
( List of martial arts - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia )

So you are correct in claiming that martial arts are widely practised as sports but it is a far cry from suggesting that even most martial arts are practised as sports. Certainly some martial arts have a competitive aspect but in many cases that is a minor one. All should include testing but that, depending on definition, is not necessarily fighting.



Hanzou said:


> I'm also sure that he would say that he is able to defend himself because of his training in Kyokushin. Which is exactly what the definition is saying; Self defense is an attribute of the martial arts.


I'm not denying for a minute that a martial artist of any persuasion can use their training to defend themselves. But defending yourself physically is not necessarily the same as self defence. If you are in a pub situation and an arguement ensues and develops into a physical fight, you can argue that you were just defending yourself. If it is subsequently demonstrated by witnesses or CCTV that the fight was avoidable it is not self defence.   Unless self defence is taught specifically it is not part of normal training and again, that is not to say it can't be included in normal training. So I would claim that the ability to defend yourself in an altercation is an attribute of martial art training, self defence is not, unless it is specifically part of the training.

*



			self defence
		
Click to expand...

*


> _The protection of one's person or property against some injury attempted by another._
> 
> Self-defense is a defense to certain criminal charges as well as to some civil claims. Under both Criminal Law andTort Law, self-defense is commonly asserted in cases of Homicide, Assault and Battery, and other crimes involvingthe attempted use of violence against an individual. Statutory and case law governing self-defense is generally the  same  in tort and criminal law.
> Self-Defense legal definition of Self-Defense


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 28, 2014)

We should all get together here at MT and make the ultimate dictionary since we spend so much time debating the ACTUAL meaning of our precious favourite words.


----------



## Zero (Nov 28, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> We should all get together here at MT and make the ultimate dictionary since we spend so much time debating the ACTUAL meaning of our precious favourite words.


Ha!!   It would be the longest book in the making, I can't see consensus being reached anytime soon on even one term or word.


----------



## K-man (Nov 28, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> We should all get together here at MT and make the ultimate dictionary since we spend so much time debating the ACTUAL meaning of our precious favourite words.


What a good idea. Could we perhaps start with _consensus.
_


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The dictionary's definition of Martial Art;
> 
> *martial art*
> _noun_
> ...


The bolded part of that definition defines fighting as what is used in a sporting contest.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Uh what? I'm saying that I wouldn't consider Iaido or the tea ceremony martial arts because they develop your "personality", not fighting ability.


That would kind of depend on what's in the tea.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 28, 2014)

This might not be short… 



Hanzou said:


> I hear a lot of people on these forums talk about how MA isn't about actual fighting, and I find that pretty puzzling. Sure, the arts can make you a better person in a variety of ways, but doesn't the entire concept of martial arts revolve around fighting? Some of the most revered figures in martial arts are revered because of their ability to fight or kill.
> 
> Would I have taken the time to read _A Book of Five Rings _if Musashi wasn't so proficient at killing people? Would I listen to Rickson Gracie's philosophy if he wasn't such a master in beating people up? Would I learn from an instructor that couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag? I'm forced to answer "no" to all three of those questions.
> 
> What do you think? How important is fighting (or the ability to fight) in the martial arts?



Let's start simple… 

"FIghting" means very different things to different people, and to different systems.

How important it is, or whether it's important at all, is largely dependant on the definition in the context, and the context of the system itself, as well as the direction of the instructor/head of the system itself. In other words, it could be almost everything, or completely irrelevant and unimportant, and anywhere in-between.

Which leads us to the actual issue… what are you defining as "martial arts"? Going through the thread, there's a lot said that have a large number of exceptions… if you only have a narrow application of the term (i.e. only systems that deal with what you consider "fighting" to be), then seeing anything beyond that is going to be rather difficult to understand… which is what we have here… again.

Oh, and… that's what you think Gorin no Sho is about…? Ha… no.



Hanzou said:


> No, I consider any conflict between individuals or groups as fighting. Sporting events certainly qualify, but so does someone attacking someone else in a bar or a pub, or someone attacking someone else in "da streetz".



Any conflict? Really? I had an argument with a co-worker… that was a conflict… does that match your definition of "fighting"?

And you do know that not all martial arts deal with a modern context, yeah? Or even the same contexts as you're bringing up here, even when they do deal with modern forms?



Hanzou said:


> Defense is part of fighting.



It can be… it can also be part of escape, or evasion/avoidance tactics… 



Hanzou said:


> Well I would argue that one learns Iaido to know how to better use (or fight with) the sword.



Yeah… no, not so much… of course, that'll depend on the student themselves… but it's not really the idea of Iaido… 



Steve said:


> I agree with those who assert that self defense is not fighting.   But, I also think that some people think they're learning to fight but are not.   Some think they're learning self defense, but are instead learning to perform perfect kata.   Some think they're learning to fight, but are instead learning to compete within a very specific rule set.



What do you think kata are about, out of interest? And, to follow that up, would you class BJJ in the same vein as you describe the people who think they're learning to fight, but are instead learning to compete within a very specific rule set?



Hanzou said:


> I think people are misunderstanding the question of the thread. I'm not asking how important fighting is to individual practitioners, I'm asking how important fighting is to the arts themselves. I.e. if you remove the fighting component from the arts, are they still "martial arts" or something else entirely?



Depends on the art… 



Hanzou said:


> Compare Goju Ryu to Tae Bo. One has a fighting component, the other doesn't.



You could argue that both have "fighting components", as they both feature combative techniques… but I'm guessing you don't feel that the way that Tae Bo is presented lends itself to combative application, yeah? Is that your distinction between having and not having a "fighting component"?



Hanzou said:


> Yeah, its aerobics, not martial arts. My point is that no one in a Tae Bo class is talking about punching or kicking someone in the face. However, that conversation is occurring in the Goju Ryu dojo. In fact, just about everything you do in that dojo is learning how to become more efficient and better at doing damage to someone.



Actually, on some of the advertising, there were a number of "soccer moms" who spoke about their Tae Bo training as giving them the confidence to know that they could defend themselves… and yeah, targeting (to strike to the right height/angle) is sometimes covered in Tae Bo… and no, there's a fair bit in a dojo that might have little to do with being "more efficient and better at doing damage to someone", at least directly… 

So… yeah… that whole thing was not really right… 



Hanzou said:


> Which is why I find it strange that some don't view "fighting" as an important component of their art.



Look at the art itself… that really should be the first port of call… and you seem to have skipped it… 



Hanzou said:


> Agreed.



Not sure that I would… particularly about the "start with honour" thing… but I can also think of a number of systems that didn't start with "fighting".. .


elder999 said:


> You'd be wrong, though.



Yep!



elder999 said:


> One learns _iai*jutsu*_ to better their fighting with a sword, among other things.



That will depend on the system, and instructor, as well as student, of course… I mean… I train Iai (you could call it "jutsu" or "do", I just call it "Iai"… there's really little to no difference), and while I'm constantly conscious of the application of the sword, ensuring that the actions are combatively correct, and so forth, I don't do it to better my fighting with a sword… don't see much point in that, honestly… 



elder999 said:


> One learns _iai*do*_ to perfect their personality.



Again, it'll depend… on a fair amount… 



Hanzou said:


> The definition of fighting I gave is the English definition of the word.



Yeah… not so much. It was you interpretation of what you feel the definition of the word is… 



Hanzou said:


> So how exactly is Iaido a martial art?



That will depend on your definition of a martial art (we'll get to the troublesome "dictionary" definition in a bit…), but for me, a martial art is a codified and formalised set of skills, methods, and applications based on or around combative or combatively themed actions and specific contexts. And, in that sense, how is it not a martial art?



Hanzou said:


> I mean, I can perfect my personality by learning a tea ceremony.



Yeah… but not in the same way, in the same context, with the same application, the same mentality, or anything else… there is a fair amount of cross-over, of course, but you're missing the point.



Hanzou said:


> The dictionary's definition of Martial Art;
> 
> *martial art*
> _noun_
> ...



Right. Here's the problem with dictionary definitions… they are designed to offer a basic, un-nuanced, and largely generalised overview, often devoid of specific context, to give an introduction to someone wanting a grasp of a term. They are never exhaustive, and, when it comes to things like this, generalised to the point of inaccuracy. To be frank, I don't agree with the definition given… it's a popular-media answer, not a genuine understanding.

In other words, don't look to that when dealing with people who actually know the topic.



drop bear said:


> Oxford.
> 
> Definition of fight in English:
> 
> ...



Again, the problem with dictionary definitions… well, we just said that. Here's the test for you… can you think of applications of the term/word that's being "defined" which do not fit within the definition given? In this example, can you think of an application of the term "fight" that doesn't involve physical blows or the use of weapons? How about a verbal "fight"? "Fight" against a disease? "Fight" to recover from surgery? There's a sports team referred to as the "Fighting Irish"… does that mean they bring weapons onto the field each game? "Fight" for control, say, of a company? Or a car?



Hanzou said:


> Uh what? I'm saying that I wouldn't consider Iaido or the tea ceremony martial arts because they develop your "personality", not fighting ability.



Yeah… maybe a wider viewpoint could help you with that… 



Hanzou said:


> Self defense, combat sports, etc. (i.e. pretty much the entirety of martial arts) fits perfectly into that definition of "fight".



Just a point, that's hardly "pretty much the entirety of martial arts" there… I train in a number of systems, none of which are combat sports, and "self defence" is only a modern part of one. Again, perhaps a wider viewpoint could help… 



drop bear said:


> see we are playing around with a lot of really vague concepts. Iaido is still swinging a sword around. Boxing can help develop personality and the tea ceremony is supposed to prepare your mind to better kill people.



No, that's not what Cha no Yu is supposed to prepare your mind for… 



Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't that be a pretty broad application though? Sure you can develop a better personality from boxing, but that isn't its primary purpose. Boxing's training is designed to make you a better boxer period. Developing a good personality from training is a side effect, not the goal.



So, to follow your argument there, if boxing is designed to make you a better boxer (I'd agree… what that means is up for debate, of course), then why does it not follow that Iaido training is designed to make you a better Iaidoka? Why is "fighter" part of it? Just because you can't see past that part of your image of what martial arts are?



Hanzou said:


> Just like getting tapped out constantly in Bjj makes you a better person because it breaks down your ego. However, that isn't the primary goal of Bjj training, or tapping out, its merely a side effect of it.



A potential side-effect, maybe… but the aim is going to be dependant on a range of things, such as the school itself, the instructor, and so on.



Hanzou said:


> Actually its not vague at all. Boxing itself is a martial art. If you're practicing boxing without the fighting components then you're not doing a martial art, you're doing an activity derived from a martial art.
> 
> Just like Tae Bo.



Yeah… that brings us back to the question of what you consider the "fighting components"… 



Hanzou said:


> Bjj fits the definition of martial art;
> 
> So I would say yes.



How so? Because of the sports consideration/criteria? Or because of the idea that it's about "fighting"… which, if you're relying on your dictionary definitions, it doesn't fit, as it doesn't use weapons or blows… Just wanting to figure out what criteria you're actually applying here.



Hanzou said:


> So in your martial arts class you're learning how to lock your windows and board up your house?
> 
> I'd ask for my money back.



Of course you would.



Hanzou said:


> In all seriousness, you know what I'm talking about. Let's stop with the semantic games shall we?



No, the issue is that definitions are important, so getting to how words and terms are being employed is vital… keeping it vague doesn't help, so the semantic argument is quite important… your entire OP and this thread rest upon them.



Hanzou said:


> Also opponent is a synonym for enemy.



No, it's really not. Your opponent in a tennis match isn't your enemy.



Hanzou said:


> No, self defense is considered an aspect of the martial arts.



It can be (I'd argue against the validity of that claim in many, if not most cases, but that's another argument). It isn't necessarily.



Hanzou said:


> As for someone from a self defense background performing well in the UFC; Nearly all the base arts of MMA (Bjj, TKD, Karate, Muay Thai, etc.) state that they offer self defense to their practitioners.



Yeah, and low-fat ice-cream can claim it's good for you… but an apple's probably better. Get what I'm saying here?



Hanzou said:


> I'm also sure that he would say that he is able to defend himself because of his training in Kyokushin. Which is exactly what the definition is saying; Self defense is an attribute of the martial arts.



No, what you've shown there is that the ability to physically defend yourself in a physical confrontation can be aided by training in a martial art, such as Kyokushin. That's all… trying to make it more than that is a logical fallacy… post hoc ergo propter hoc… 



Hanzou said:


> Isn't "fight back skill" simply another way to say "self defines"?



No, not necessarily. It might be part of it, but not definitely.



Hanzou said:


> Anyway, I have yet to run across a martial art that doesn't prop itself up as a method of self defense.



Kyudo.
Iaido.
Sumo.
Kendo.
Most Koryu (I could list here for days, but you'd get bored, and you wouldn't have heard of 99% of them…).
Many approaches to Taiji.
Fencing.
Jogo de Pau.


There's a small list for you.


----------



## Buka (Nov 28, 2014)

Does anyone see the irony - that maybe the only group of guys in the whole world who can't agree on the definition of fighting are on a Martial Arts forum?

We all be bananas.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

elder999 said:


> Consider then.
> 
> This webpage has a bio of the *Takeyuki Hidefusa Miura, *grandmaster of the Jikishin kai, student of the 18th grandmaster of Muso-jikiden eishin ryu, and present grandmaster of one line of eishin-ryu.    A man recognized throughout the world (of such things, anyway) and by the Japanese government, as a superlative master of iaido.
> '
> ...



I don't know. Maybe you should ask him?

I thought we already established that Iaido wasn't MA....


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 28, 2014)

I find it more ironic that people who know the arts are bigger than words try to define them in a clean cut way in order to provide simple answers for lazy closed minds.


----------



## Zero (Nov 28, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> I find it more ironic that people who know the arts are bigger than words try to define them in a clean cut way in order to provide simple answers for lazy closed minds.


Lazy, closed minds, that could well be the problem  : )


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 28, 2014)

Martial - war  
war - conflict/fighting
Yes a martial art is about fighting but there is so much more involved then just fighting. Self improvement in mental and physical and maybe spiritual development is also involved. Awareness of surroundings and learning to "read" others  is included.  
A person prepares for war in more ways then just learning to fight  and a war is not all about fighting there are many other things involved including psychological .
so are martial arts all about fighting yes and no depending on the field of study


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2014)

Danny T said:
			
		

> "Is running a martial art? No, however running in the proper situation is a form of self defense.
> 
> *Is swimming a martial art?  *No. However swimming skills in the proper situation is a form of self-defense.



Actually, _sujutsu,_, or _*to*suijutsu_-swimming in armor-*is* a "martial art."


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I don't know. Maybe you should ask him?
> I thought we already established that Iaido wasn't MA....



No, we only established that a _martial _*art-*like_ iaido_-isn't necessarily about "fighting," and certainly doesn't have "fighting" as part of its regular practice.

Of course, given the way you've expressed yourself here, the very idea that fighting isn't important to it (rather than the intention and....a phrase I frequently use: mindset, as Chris pointed out) makes it "not a martial art." ..well, you know what some of us say about "thoughts?."

(The following is, of course, not at all safe for work-but the first 17 seconds are, and they're all that really apply.)






Note: "multi quote" function might have a bug, or it might be my big thumbs.....


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> You could argue that both have "fighting components", as they both feature combative techniques… but I'm guessing you don't feel that the way that Tae Bo is presented lends itself to combative application, yeah? Is that your distinction between having and not having a "fighting component"?



Actually Tae Bo doesn't feature fighting components, since it doesn't teach you how to kick or punch properly. The purpose behind the kicking and punching in Tae Bo is purely for exercise purposes.

Goju training completely revolves around those concepts. Everything you do is to teach you how to kick and punch properly.



> So, to follow your argument there, if boxing is designed to make you a better boxer (I'd agree… what that means is up for debate, of course), then why does it not follow that Iaido training is designed to make you a better Iaidoka? Why is "fighter" part of it? Just because you can't see past that part of your image of what martial arts are?



Boxers are fighters. So if the goal is to make you a better boxer, the goal is to make you a better fighter by default.



> How so? Because of the sports consideration/criteria? Or because of the idea that it's about "fighting"… which, if you're relying on your dictionary definitions, it doesn't fit, as it doesn't use weapons or blows… Just wanting to figure out what criteria you're actually applying here.



Actually it does fit, since physical struggle is included within the definition of fighting, and traditional forms of Bjj have strikes/blows within the system. 



> There's a small list for you.



Those are some very rare martial arts. I'm mainly talking about the more common/popular martial arts.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Is rugby a martial art?
> 
> it includes fighting.



So does Baseball, Football, Soccer, Hockey, etc.

None of them are martial arts.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2014)

Oh, and since you seem to enjoy the _Merriam Webster English Language Technical Manual_,(that's _engineerspeak_ for "dictionary.") here's something for you to consider:



			
				MerriamWebster said:
			
		

> nu·ance
> ˈn(y)o͞oˌäns/
> _noun_
> a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound.
> ...


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Actually Tae Bo doesn't feature fighting components, since it doesn't teach you how to kick or punch properly. The purpose behind the kicking and punching in Tae Bo is purely for exercise purposes.




What makes you *say*  that Tae Bo doesn't teach how to kick or punch properly?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Actually Tae Bo doesn't feature fighting components, since it doesn't teach you how to kick or punch properly. The purpose behind the kicking and punching in Tae Bo is purely for exercise purposes.
> 
> Goju training completely revolves around those concepts. Everything you do is to teach you how to kick and punch properly.


So again ill ask what are fighting components? 



> Boxers are fighters. So if the goal is to make you a better boxer, the goal is to make you a better fighter by default.


Unless of course your not boxing to fight and your boxing to loose weight, get in shape, or because you like it.  



> Those are some very rare martial arts. I'm mainly talking about the more common/popular martial arts.


So basically you only want to discuss the styles that match your beliefs all others dont count


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> So basically you only want to discuss the styles that match your beliefs all others dont count



*QFT.*


----------



## K-man (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Goju training completely revolves around those concepts. *Everything* you do is to teach you how to kick and punch properly.


Um, no. There is much, much more to Goju than punching and kicking.



Hanzou said:


> Boxers are fighters. So if the goal is to make you a better boxer, the goal is to make you a better fighter by default.


Again, boxing sometimes is just to develop cardiovascular fitness. That is why it was popular in the armed forces. It had the added benefit of channeling aggression but H2H was separate training to teach guys how to fight without weapons.



Hanzou said:


> Actually it does fit, since *physical struggle is included within the definition of fighting*, and traditional forms of Bjj have strikes/blows within the system.


Ah, beautiful! Good Aikido doesn't involve physical struggle but bad Aikido does. Does that mean that bad Aikido includes fighting so is a martial art but good Aikido doesn't involve fighting so isn't a martial art? But then Aikido also has strikes/blows within its system. This is getting really confusing.



Hanzou said:


> Those are some very rare martial arts. I'm mainly talking about the more common/popular martial arts.


Well perhaps you should have said so, but mainstream Aikido is really quite popular and doesn't have 'fighting' that falls within your definition of fighting.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> So again ill ask what are fighting components?



The components of a system that enhance your ability to fight. For example, the stances of Karate, or the drills of Bjj.



> Unless of course your not boxing to fight and your boxing to loose weight, get in shape, or because you like it.



Then you're not doing Boxing the martial art. You're doing exercises derived from the martial art of Boxing.



> So basically you only want to discuss the styles that match your beliefs all others dont count



Basically there's no point in discussing styles that are pretty much nonexistent outside of the confines of their home countries. Why would we waste time talking about Kyudo when most people are taking TKD or MMA?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The components of a system that enhance your ability to fight. For example, the stances of Karate, or the drills of Bjj.


So Tae Bo has all that, hell p90X has stances punches and kicks, so does football, ect.  



> Then you're not doing Boxing the martial art. You're doing exercises derived from the martial art of Boxing.


So if I go to a boxing gym and train to box but I dont actually fight im not learning Boxing?


> Basically there's no point in discussing styles that are pretty much nonexistent outside of the confines of their home countries. Why would we waste time talking about Kyudo when most people are taking TKD or MMA?


lol yea ok  so I was right


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

K-man said:


> Um, no. There is much, much more to Goju than punching and kicking.



All of which is to make you better at kicking and punching.



> Again, boxing sometimes is just to develop cardiovascular fitness. That is why it was popular in the armed forces. It had the added benefit of channeling aggression but H2H was separate training to teach guys how to fight without weapons.



Okay, so the goal for that particular training was to develop endurance and stamina. Again, an exercise derived from the martial art of Boxing, not the martial art itself.



> Ah, beautiful! Good Aikido doesn't involve physical struggle but bad Aikido does. Does that mean that bad Aikido includes fighting so is a martial art but good Aikido doesn't involve fighting so isn't a martial art? But then Aikido also has strikes/blows within its system. This is getting really confusing.
> 
> Well perhaps you should have said so, but mainstream Aikido is really quite popular and doesn't have 'fighting' that falls within your definition of fighting.



Wasn't there an entire article in the Aikido forum about how Aikido isn't  a Martial Art anymore because its lost its fighting attributes?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> So Tae Bo has all that, hell p90X has stances punches and kicks, so does football, ect.



Stances and punches designed for aerobic purposes, not to actually punch and kick someone.



> So if I go to a boxing gym and train to box but I dont actually fight im not learning Boxing?



Part of learning to box is actually boxing someone.


----------



## K-man (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The components of a system that enhance your ability to fight. For example, the stances of Karate, or the drills of Bjj.


So the stances in Karate are important now to enhance your ability to fight yet in another thread you claimed they were useless and you never see them in a fight. Kata is also a part of karate that enhance your ability to fight. Have you changed your position on kata as well?



Hanzou said:


> Then you're not doing Boxing the martial art. You're doing exercises derived from the martial art of Boxing.


So if someone is in a boxing class, punching the heavy bag, doing the pad work, roadwork, skipping etc but not going in the ring, they are not doing boxing. Hmm!



Hanzou said:


> Basically there's no point in discussing styles that are pretty much nonexistent outside of the confines of their home countries. Why would we waste time talking about Kyudo when most people are taking TKD or MMA?


Then perhaps you should discuss TKD as a single example rather than lump everything together as TMAs or MAs. 

If the thread had been titled "How important is fighting within TKD" you would have a much more clearly defined discussion. That also would stop you "wasting your time talking about Kyudo".


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Stances and punches designed for aerobic purposes, not to actually punch and kick someone.


So I cant take what I learned in class and punch someone?



> Part of learning to box is actually boxing someone.


Says who?


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Stances and punches designed for aerobic purposes, not to actually punch and kick someone.



They're stances and punches taken directly from martial arts, kenpo and tae kwon do, so what do you mean?





Hanzou said:


> Part of learning to box is actually boxing someone.



In your apparently narrow view of things, perhaps, but-and I say this as a former Golden Gloves boxer and current trainer-one can learn to box without "actually boxing" someone.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 28, 2014)

Well Hanz we will just have to disagree.  I think you have too narrow of a view on what is and isnt a martial art.  Me I dont care.  If Tae Bo wants to call itself a Martial Art cool Its in art. In the grand scheme of things who cares,  If a boxers doesnt want to get in the ring who care its still boxing.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

K-man said:


> So the stances in Karate are important now to enhance your ability to fight yet in another thread you claimed they were useless and you never see them in a fight. Kata is also a part of karate that enhance your ability to fight. Have you changed your position on kata as well?



Where did I say they were useless?? I said that there's better ways to reach the end goal of kata, which is general technique improvement.



> So if someone is in a boxing class, punching the heavy bag, doing the pad work, roadwork, skipping etc but not going in the ring, they are not doing boxing. Hmm!



Nope. Boxing is actually getting in the ring and boxing.



> Then perhaps you should discuss TKD as a single example rather than lump everything together as TMAs or MAs.



Nah.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

elder999 said:


> They're stances and punches taken directly from martial arts, kenpo and tae kwon do, so what do you mean?



I mean if you want to seriously argue that someone doing Tae Bo is actually learning to hit someone, then you're being silly.



> In your apparently narrow view of things, perhaps, but-and I say this as a former Golden Gloves boxer and current trainer-one can learn to box without "actually boxing" someone.



So you can box without actually boxing? Interesting.


----------



## K-man (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> All of which is to make you better at kicking and punching.


Not at all. They make me better at locks and holds and takedowns. They make me better at grappling.  They make me better at striking. Punches and kicks are a very small part of Goju.



Hanzou said:


> Okay, so the goal for that particular training was to develop endurance and stamina. Again, an exercise derived from the martial art of Boxing, not the martial art itself.


So now it is the goal of the training that is important. At least we can agree on something.  But training a martial art with a particular goal does not invalidate the training as a martial art. The goal of my Aikido training is not to learn Aikido. That is a side benefit. I train Aikido to learn the skill sets within Aikido to apply to my other MA training.




Hanzou said:


> Wasn't there an entire article in the Aikido forum about how Aikido isn't  a Martial Art anymore because its lost its fighting attributes?


Certainly, and that was one person's thoughts. Are you suggesting Aikido is not a Martial Art?


----------



## K-man (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say they were useless?? I said that there's better ways to reach the end goal of kata, which is general technique improvement.


Stances in karate are used for grappling, not for sparring or strengthening the legs. You made remarks about training stances that were a waste of time. And your understanding of kata hasn't changed despite 100s of pages of posts with people trying to explain to you what kata is really about. You don't want to learn, you just want to push your own view, which in the case of kata, is shallow and deeply flawed. Kata is nothing to do with technique improvement ... absolutely nothing.




Hanzou said:


> Nope. Boxing is actually getting in the ring and boxing.


In your humble opinion.




Hanzou said:


> Nah.


So you would rather keep the discussion vague rather than specific? What a clever strategy!


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So you can box without actually boxing? Interesting.



What I said was "you can _learn_ to box without actually boxing." There's a difference between what I said, and what you've found "interesting."

Of course, we've already established that that difference is "thought," or the lack thereof?

At any rate, I trained someone who'd had facial reconstruction and other cranial surgery. They couldn't get hit in the head, so no "actual boxing" for them. They did, however, learn to box.


----------



## Zero (Nov 28, 2014)

elder999 said:


> Actually, _sujutsu,_, or _*to*suijutsu_-swimming in armor-*is* a "martial art."


Here's something not too many know, those SCBA (self-contained breathing apparatus) that firemen wear, well you can wear those things and breath under about two meters of water.  Like a low grade scuba outfit.   There you go, now that's something worth knowing.


----------



## Elbowgrease (Nov 28, 2014)

I know people who have never practiced any form of "martial art" that are absolutely amazing fighters. But there ugly, rotten, over the edge lunatics with baseball bats, guns, knives, etc. that would kill there own mother for $5. 
How many different aspects of life could a person apply The Art of War to? 
It's a book specifically about war, but it really can be applied to ANYTHING.  
To me, fighting is easy. The hard part of it is making it through the day without fighting. Learning how to deal with the people around me in a relatively positive way.
Is that a martial art? Is that fighting? 
That is one of the many, many reasons I practice martial arts. 
You can only ask this question as it regards each individual, and with the understanding that each individual is going to have a different answer, and all are true, and none are true. 
So what's that got to do with the price of rice. 
Why do YOU practice martial arts?
How important is fighting to you? 
Those are the questions you have to ask yourself.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 28, 2014)

elder999 said:


> Actually, _sujutsu,_, or _*to*suijutsu_-swimming in armor-*is* a "martial art.


I stand corrected. Goes to show there are many martial arts and some are unknown to many of us. Thank you elder999.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2014)

Danny T said:


> I stand corrected. Goes to show there are many martial arts and some are unknown to many of us. Thank you elder999.


 
You're welcome.

Funnily enough, "fighting"  isn't important to _suijutsu_ at all...


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 28, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Is rugby a martial art?
> 
> it includes fighting.


 
My original BJJ instructor (who is also a Muay Thai practitioner and an MMA competitor) played rugby and was emphatic that he *did* count it as a martial art.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

K-man said:


> Stances in karate are used for grappling, not for sparring or strengthening the legs. You made remarks about training stances that were a waste of time. And your understanding of kata hasn't changed despite 100s of pages of posts with people trying to explain to you what kata is really about. You don't want to learn, you just want to push your own view, which in the case of kata, is shallow and deeply flawed. Kata is nothing to do with technique improvement ... absolutely nothing.



You got any video examples of this grappling outside of demonstration purposes?



> In your humble opinion.



I can punch a bag and jump rope all day, doesn't mean I'm boxing.



> So you would rather keep the discussion vague rather than specific? What a clever strategy!



That discussion was about martial art schools (particularly MAs associated with MMA) considering themselves places where one can learn self defense. Kyudo's stance on self defense doesn't mean a whole lot in that discussion.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

elder999 said:


> What I said was "you can _learn_ to box without actually boxing." There's a difference between what I said, and what you've found "interesting."



Agreed. So what point are you trying to make here? My point is that you can do the exercises derived from boxing, but you're not doing the martial art of boxing unless you're actually boxing.



> At any rate, I trained someone who'd had facial reconstruction and other cranial surgery. They couldn't get hit in the head, so no "actual boxing" for them. They did, however, learn to box.



Okay.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> My original BJJ instructor (who is also a Muay Thai practitioner and an MMA competitor) played rugby and was emphatic that he *did* count it as a martial art.


 
I played lacrosse.

*Definitely* a martial art.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Agreed. So what point are you trying to make here? My point is that you can do the exercises derived from boxing, but you're not doing the martial art of boxing unless you're actually boxing.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.


 
I'd disagree:you're doing the martial art of boxing, but you're not actually boxing.

Granted, you're not a *boxer*, unless you actually box-but you can train in the martial art of boxing without being a boxer, just as you can train in the martial arts of the samurai, without actually being one......or cutting down anyone with a sword.

There are, in fact, several forms of _sparring_ in actual boxing training that are not "fighting."

In Thailand, in most real muay thai gyms, they don't "free spar" at all, for whatever that's worth to you.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 28, 2014)

elder999 said:


> I played lacrosse.
> 
> *Definitely* a martial art.


 Especially if you played the original form of the game!


----------



## drop bear (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> You got any video examples of this grappling outside of demonstration purposes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i will have a chat to my karate guy. I think they used to do takedowns in comps back in the day.

so there might be some out thete


----------



## drop bear (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So does Baseball, Football, Soccer, Hockey, etc.
> 
> None of them are martial arts.



by your definition?

for me i would be open to the idea of pretty much anybody calling themselves a martial art.

but i am more specific about whether that martial art is any good.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 28, 2014)

Everyone seems to have forgotten that the term 'martial art' has two words in it, the other being 'art'. So a 'martial art' can also be defined as an art form derived from fighting techniques.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

drop bear said:


> by your definition?



By common sense.

You're training in baseball for example to hit or catch a ball across a field and score points for your team. You're not training in baseball to crack someone across the head with a baseball bat.

Boxing's goal on the other hand is to punch someone in the face and the body until that person is knocked unconscious.  The training you perform in boxing is to become more efficient at knocking someone else out.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

elder999 said:


> I'd disagree:you're doing the martial art of boxing, but you're not actually boxing.
> 
> Granted, you're not a *boxer*, unless you actually box-but you can train in the martial art of boxing without being a boxer, just as you can train in the martial arts of the samurai, without actually being one......or cutting down anyone with a sword.
> 
> ...



Why exactly would someone learn boxing if their goal isn't to actually box? And when I say box, I'm not saying just in competition, i mean that they intend at some point to possibly use their boxing skills to defend themselves. That really goes for all martial arts in general. I simply don't buy the notion that someone would join a martial art school with no intention of ever fighting with those skills. There are cheaper and more efficient ways to get in shape or improve your personality than doing Karate or Bjj for example.


----------



## K-man (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> You got any video examples of this grappling outside of demonstration purposes?



I couldn't be bothered looking for anything for you any more. You don't accept any other opinion but your own so why would I waste time? You want it, you find it.



Hanzou said:


> That discussion was about martial art schools (particularly MAs associated with MMA) considering themselves places where one can learn self defense. Kyudo's stance on self defense doesn't mean a whole lot in that discussion.


Again you have selective memory and have changed the parameters. There is absolutely *nothing* in your OP about martial art schools, absolutely *nothing* about MMA and absolutely *nothing* about self defence.

To jog your memory your OP follows.



Hanzou said:


> I hear a lot of people on these forums talk about how MA isn't about actual fighting, and I find that pretty puzzling. Sure, the arts can make you a better person in a variety of ways, but doesn't the entire concept of martial arts revolve around fighting? Some of the most revered figures in martial arts are revered because of their ability to fight or kill.
> 
> Would I have taken the time to read _A Book of Five Rings _if Musashi wasn't so proficient at killing people? Would I listen to Rickson Gracie's philosophy if he wasn't such a master in beating people up? Would I learn from an instructor that couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag? I'm forced to answer "no" to all three of those questions.
> 
> What do you think? How important is fighting (or the ability to fight) in the martial arts?


Now I'm over this thread because you don't want to do anything but push your own agenda. I'll try *Elder*'s thread instead, where the parameters are defined.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> By common sense.
> 
> Boxing's goal on the other hand is to punch someone in the face, and to train you to become very efficient at punching someone in the face.


 
Actually, given boxing's real goal, it might be better to say you "train to become efficient at punching someone," _as well as evading being punched._

And body shots usually rule over face shots, given the dynamics.....


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> That really goes for all martial arts in general. I simply don't buy the notion that someone would join a martial art school with no intention of ever fighting with those skills. There are cheaper and more efficient ways to get in shape or improve your personality than doing Karate or Bjj for example.


 
They might do it for cultural reasons......they might do it because their whole family does it......or because their father teaches them, and they like it........or because they just like it.........or because they _might_ *someday* have to defend themselves, and knowing how against the possible eventuality-much like the pistol I wear, but hope to never have to use-is better than not.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to take note that there is generally no "free sparring" in muay thai gyms in Thailand..


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

K-man said:


> I couldn't be bothered looking for anything for you any more. You don't accept any other opinion but your own so why would I waste time? You want it, you find it.



You're the one telling me that karate is some sort of grappling art, yet I have to see any grappling in it outside some demonstrations by a couple of individuals. If grappling in Karate is as prevalent as you say it is, where is it?



> Again you have selective memory and have changed the parameters. There is absolutely *nothing* in your OP about martial art schools, absolutely *nothing* about MMA and absolutely *nothing* about self defence.
> 
> To jog your memory your OP follows.



Read posts #59 and #73.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Why exactly would someone learn boxing if their goal isn't to actually box? And when I say box, I'm not saying just in competition, i mean that they intend at some point to possibly use their boxing skills to defend themselves. That really goes for all martial arts in general. I simply don't buy the notion that someone would join a martial art school with no intention of ever fighting with those skills. There are cheaper and more efficient ways to get in shape or improve your personality than doing Karate or Bjj for example.


 
I go to the range (on average) once a week and shoot (on average) a couple hundred rounds. By your logic, I intend to go shoot someone.

The truth is that, just like my unarmed martial arts, it's something I really hope I never need to use again.

You can say you don't buy it, but that's the truth of it.

Honestly, if I had a student that gave me reason to believe that they *intended* to use their training (as opposed to being prepared to do so, if absolutely necessary) I'd think at least twice about training them further.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

elder999 said:


> They might do it for cultural reasons......they might do it because their whole family does it......or because their father teaches them, and they like it........or because they just like it.........or because they _might_[ *someday* have to defend themselves, and knowing how against the possible eventuality-much like the pistol I wear, but hope too never have to use-is better than not.



None of those reasons really go against the idea that someone really only joins a martial art because they're trying to improve their fighting ability. Now certainly other things matter as well, but clearly fighting would be the primary reason.



> Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to take note that there is generally no "free sparring" in muay thai gyms in Thailand..



Really? There's tons of YT videos showing exactly that.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> I go to the range (on average) once a week and shoot (on average) a couple hundred rounds. By your logic, I intend to go shoot someone.



Why else would you be improving your aim with a gun?



> The truth is that, just like my unarmed martial arts, it's something I really hope I never need to use again.



Yet you're training yourself just in case you have to. I'm not seeing where the disagreement is with my statements above.



> You can say you don't buy it, but that's the truth of it.
> 
> Honestly, if I had a student that gave me reason to believe that they *intended* to use their training (as opposed to being prepared to do so, if absolutely necessary) I'd think at least twice about training them further.



Isn't that just semantics? Isn't preparation itself (training) showing a certain level of intent?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> You're the one telling me that karate is some sort of grappling art, yet I have to see any grappling in it outside some demonstrations by a couple of individuals. If grappling in Karate is as prevalent as you say it is, where is it?


If you want to see it then why don't you go look for yourself?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> If you want to see it then why don't you go look for yourself?



I have, and I've never found it. My experience with grappling karatekas is that their grappling skills are extremely low unless they've cross-trained. I know one instructor who mixes Judo with Isshin-Ryu, and he wrestled in HS, so his students are very good grapplers. However they are the exceptions. 

Which I always find K-Man's claims of pure Karate grappling so interesting.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 28, 2014)

K-man said:


> Kata is nothing to do with technique improvement ... absolutely nothing.


I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with technique improvement, I would say that it was an important part, like it is in line work.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> None of those reasons really go against the idea that someone really only joins a martial art because they're trying to improve their fighting ability. Now certainly other things matter as well, but clearly fighting would be the primary reason.


 
For you, it might be the primary reason. It might even have been the primary reason for my father teaching me, when I was seven or eight years old.

For my three year old son, though, 29 years ago, it was strictly about being on the mat with Daddy, and it stayed that way until he graduated from high school.......





Hanzou said:


> Really? There's tons of YT videos showing exactly that.


 
Technical sparring, perhaps, but not full-contact, full speed free-sparring. Not in Thailand, anyway, unless it's one of those newfangled martial _tourist_ camps. When I was there, we ran and did conditioning in the morning: four miles,  maybe five rounds of bag work, and some calisthenics. Evenings, it was another run,,  five more rounds of bags, maybe five of pads, clinching, knees, kicks, punches, some nights some technical sparring (specific sparring drills, like getting off the ropes, done at about 75% and increasing the tempo, repetitively) and finish up with more calisthenics. No free sparring, so no one got hurt-most of those guys were pretty poor, and fighting was how they earned money. Granted, the last time I was there was 1987, and it was to get ready to fight in Japan, but in the real places, that's *still* the philosophy, I'm told: fighting is for *money*, and you don't do it in training.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

elder999 said:


> For you, it might be the primary reason. It might even have been the primary reason for my father teaching me, when I was seven or eight years old.
> 
> For my three year old son, though, 29 years ago, it was strictly about being on the mat with Daddy, and it stayed that way until he graduated from high school.......



So you're saying that at no point your son had a desire to learn how to fight from what you were teaching him? C'mon Elder. Even my father taught me how to box at a young age, and I wanted to learn to protect myself (and also because I thought my dad was a bad ***).



> Technical sparring, perhaps, but not full-contact, full speed free-sparring. Not in Thailand, anyway, unless it's one of those newfangled martial _tourist_ camps. When I was there, we ran and did conditioning in the morning: four miles,  maybe five rounds of bag work, and some calisthenics. Evenings, it was another run,,  five more rounds of bags, maybe five of pads, clinching, knees, kicks, punches, some nights some technical sparring (specific sparring drills, like getting off the ropes, done at about 75% and increasing the tempo, repetitively) and finish up with more calisthenics. No free sparring, so no one got hurt-most of those guys were pretty poor, and fighting was how they earned money.
> 
> In the real places, that's *still* the philosophy, I'm told: fighting is for *money*, and you don't do it in training.



Fair enough. However I would still argue that their goal is to fight, and their training completely revolves around enhancing their ability to accomplish that goal.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I have, and I've never found it. My experience with grappling karatekas is that their grappling skills are extremely low unless they've cross-trained. I know one instructor who mixes Judo with Isshin-Ryu, and he wrestled in HS, so his students are very good grapplers. However they are the exceptions.
> 
> Which I always find K-Man's claims of pure Karate grappling so interesting.


He has a bit more Karate experience than you have, maybe he knows something you don't.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> He has a bit more Karate experience than you have, maybe he knows something you don't.



Oh, I don't doubt that at all. I simply wish he would be a bit more forthcoming, since he talks about it so much.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Oh, I don't doubt that at all. I simply wish he would be a bit more forthcoming, since he talks about it so much.


 
Oh for heaven's sake!

Here's an image from one of Funakoshi's books, showing a throw *from karate.* 




(This book is in Japanese, so it reads right to left.)


----------



## Danny T (Nov 28, 2014)

[QUOTE="Hanzou]You got any video examples of this grappling outside of demonstration purposes?.[/QUOTE]
Here again grappling needs to be defined, it's my impression your definition is different from many of us.

There is grappling in Muay Thai, in Pekiti-Tirsia Kali, in Wing Chun, in most Karate systems.
Grappling is to hold, grab, clinch, seize while in a physical fight or contest with another person.
Grappling techniques can be subdivided into Clinch, Takedowns & Throws, Submissions & Pins, Sweeps, Reversals, Turnovers, and Escapes. 
Grappling is when one graps, seizes, clinches, etc during a physical fight or contest.


----------



## qianfeng (Nov 28, 2014)

elder999 said:


> Oh for heaven's sake!
> 
> Here's an image from one of Funakoshi's books, showing a throw *from karate.*
> View attachment 19027
> (This book is in Japanese, so it reads right to left.)



I think he's saying generally karatekas have worse grappling than 'GASP' grapplers who practice say shuai jiao wresting or judo which is true. Most martial include ti da shuai na, kicks strikes throws and locks but some focus more in one like judo in throwing and locking and karate in striking and kicking.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 28, 2014)

elder999 said:


> Oh for heaven's sake!
> 
> Here's an image from one of Funakoshi's books, showing a throw *from karate.*
> View attachment 19027
> (This book is in Japanese, so it reads right to left.)



.......

I don't know what I expected, but that looks impractical as hell.


----------



## qianfeng (Nov 29, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Everyone seems to have forgotten that the term 'martial art' has two words in it, the other being 'art'. So a 'martial art' can also be defined as an art form derived from fighting techniques.



A believe the word martial art is a translation from the Chinese word wushu or Japanese bujustu which are both the same and written 武术
It does not mean martial ART but rather martial techniques which obviously are techniques relating or can be used in a martial kind of way. For example, the swimming in armour is needed for samurai to use when sneaking on an enemy or running away.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 29, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Why else would you be improving your aim with a gun?


 
Ummmm... because it's fun?



Hanzou said:


> Yet you're training yourself just in case you have to. I'm not seeing where the disagreement is with my statements above.


 
 Because you said "intent", and that simply isn't true.



Hanzou said:


> Isn't that just semantics? Isn't preparation itself (training) showing a certain level of intent?


 
We're back to muble dogface to the banana patch. If you can't tell the difference between "willing to, if I absolutely have to" and "intend to" then there's no much anybody can say to you will make sense to you.


----------



## qianfeng (Nov 29, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> .......
> 
> I don't know what I expected, but that looks impractical as hell.


Uh I believe this throw is used in cma and Sanda as well except you don't stand that high when you are doing it and you are not grabbing the punch.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 29, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> .......
> 
> I don't know what I expected, but that looks impractical as hell.


 
I imagine you feel the same way about half of the _gokyo waza_......I know* I do*, but for different reasons...


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 29, 2014)

elder999 said:


> I imagine you feel the same way about half of the _gokyo waza_......I know* I do*, but for different reasons...



Judo Gokyo Waza? 

I don't recall anything in that group of techniques looking as impractical as that throw.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 29, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying that at no point your son had a desire to learn how to fight from what you were teaching him? C'mon Elder. Even my father taught me how to box at a young age, and I wanted to learn to protect myself (and also because I thought my dad was a bad ***).


 
Inasmuch as I can say that I know my son's heart, at no point did he have any desire to fight. Guy hates fighting. In fact, the only thing I can really say about it is that martial arts gave him the confidence to avoid fighting as much as possible, and become a great negotiator.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 29, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Judo Gokyo Waza?
> 
> I don't recall anything in that group of techniques looking as impractical as that throw.


 
yeah, 'cause _sasai tsurikomi ashi_ works so well on someone who isn't wearing armor! 




(Actually, it would work well for me against someone *larger* than I am, but there aren't too many of those-this is what I meant about the gokyo waza, though-some of them aren't practical for me at all because of my size, and some of them are practical against certain opponents in certain situations (this one works well off of _o soto gari_), , and some are practical for other people-just because _two photographs_ seem impractical to you, doesn't mean at all that they *are......)*


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 29, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Which I always find K-Man's claims of pure Karate grappling so interesting.


Where did he use the word "pure"?


----------



## elder999 (Nov 29, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> .......
> 
> I don't know what I expected, but that looks impractical as hell.


 
And you do understand that it comes from the kata, and isn't really demonstrating a "technique,": per se, as much as it is a principle?


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 29, 2014)

Okay… 



Hanzou said:


> I thought we already established that Iaido wasn't MA....



Really? Where did we establish anything of the kind? You made your uninformed views, based on highly limited and narrow personal interpretation of your own, ignoring the actual definitions and applications of a range of terms. In fact, I posited a different (and, if I may, more accurate and inclusive) definition, and asked how Iaido was not a martial art under that view… you didn't answer, and instead threw this up there? 

Dude. Iaido is a martial art. Deal with it.



elder999 said:


> Actually, _sujutsu,_, or _*to*suijutsu_-swimming in armor-*is* a "martial art."



Beat me to it, Elder! Gonna add some info later though… 



Hanzou said:


> Actually Tae Bo doesn't feature fighting components, since it doesn't teach you how to kick or punch properly. The purpose behind the kicking and punching in Tae Bo is purely for exercise purposes.



The primary drive behind Tae Bo is fitness… but it employs martial (combative) techniques… and, like any exercise, correct form is important.



Hanzou said:


> Goju training completely revolves around those concepts. Everything you do is to teach you how to kick and punch properly.



Everything…? Methinks you might not have as deep an understanding as you believe… 



Hanzou said:


> Boxers are fighters. So if the goal is to make you a better boxer, the goal is to make you a better fighter by default.



Er… no. A boxer can be a fighter… depending on how you're defining or applying the term… but not necessarily. Elder's been dealing with much of that, but I might weigh in a bit as well… the important thing is that it might help you if you begin to realise that not everyone or everything matches or fits into your view of them… boxing, or being a boxer, isn't only what you think it is… nor are all boxers looking to be the same thing… some want to be fitter, some want to be a competitor, and would consider themselves an athlete first, some do want to be a fighter, some just want an outlet for various reasons, and so on.



Hanzou said:


> Actually it does fit, since physical struggle is included within the definition of fighting, and traditional forms of Bjj have strikes/blows within the system.



Yeah… not so much, actually. The definition you gave of "fight" did mention "struggle", but not the way you're saying here… for one thing, it didn't say anything about "physical struggle"… nor did it say that such an idea was "included" in the definition… it was actually more limited than that (which is what I was highlighting), saying that "fight" was defined as "Take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons". In other words, the only form of struggle is a violent one which involves physical strikes (not grappling, holds, throws etc) or weapons… which doesn't match BJJ… 

Now, to be clear, I was highlighting this as a way of getting you to realise that the definition you provided was limited, incomplete, and inaccurate.



Hanzou said:


> Those are some very rare martial arts. I'm mainly talking about the more common/popular martial arts.



"Very rare"? Really? Kendo is "very rare", is it? Iaido is "very rare"? Do you know how many students there are of Kyudo outside of Japan? I'm aware of many groups here, in New Zealand, Europe, the US… 

But the real issue here is that you're applying false and incredibly narrow definitions to everything in this thread… you're only applying a flawed and inaccurate dictionary definition of "martial arts"… same with "fight"… you're ignoring martial arts that you don't see the connection with (such as Iaido above, stating that "we had already determined it wasn't a martial art")… and now you're saying that you only want to deal with mainstream modern arts that you think match what you think martial arts are.

This isn't an issue of semantics, it's an issue of a complete lack of depth in understanding (which isn't a problem in itself) combined with a complete inability or unwillingness to improve upon that state of affairs (which is a problem if you're wanting to discuss these ideas). Seriously, you asked people who train in arts where the idea of "fighting" isn't so important to explain that to you… and are fighting against every answer you get. 



Hanzou said:


> The components of a system that enhance your ability to fight. For example, the stances of Karate, or the drills of Bjj.



Or the kicks and punches found in Tae Bo… or are you taking those single physical actions as being different from the single physical actions you're identifying in other systems? If so, how? What makes a kick in Tae Bo not a "fighting component", but the same kick in Karate would be one?



Hanzou said:


> Then you're not doing Boxing the martial art. You're doing exercises derived from the martial art of Boxing.



Well, many boxers might not even consider themselves as doing Boxing the "martial art"… they'd basically say they're doing boxing… maybe the sport of boxing… but more to the point, no, they'd be doing boxing. Doing "exercises derived from boxing" would be doing something like shadow boxing externally from training in boxing itself… so… no.



Hanzou said:


> Basically there's no point in discussing styles that are pretty much nonexistent outside of the confines of their home countries. Why would we waste time talking about Kyudo when most people are taking TKD or MMA?



"Non-existant outside of the confines of their home countries"? Ha!

No.

But, importantly, you only spoke about martial arts… you didn't make any restrictions of what martial arts we're supposed to talk about or not. So… no.



Hanzou said:


> All of which is to make you better at kicking and punching.



Again… methinks perchance you may be over-reaching your understanding here… 

In other words, nope.



Hanzou said:


> Okay, so the goal for that particular training was to develop endurance and stamina. Again, an exercise derived from the martial art of Boxing, not the martial art itself.



No, they were boxing for the benefits to stamina and endurance it gives (by being able to fight multiple rounds)… it wasn't anything "derived" from boxing, it was boxing. It just didn't have the emphasis you'd like it to have.



Hanzou said:


> Wasn't there an entire article in the Aikido forum about how Aikido isn't  a Martial Art anymore because its lost its fighting attributes?



Yeah, but that article was flawed… and was one persons perspective on what he saw as an issue within his own art, based on his experience in his early training, as well as witnessing more modern iterations of his art. In other words, you missed the point of the thread, the article, and more… only wanting to see what you could recognise...



Hanzou said:


> Where did I say they were useless?? I said that there's better ways to reach the end goal of kata, which is general technique improvement.



The implication was throughout your posts… but, more importantly, do you really think that's the end goal of kata? Not in any way… general technique improvement is taken care of in other ways… and it's really not anything to do with kata… 



Hanzou said:


> Nope. Boxing is actually getting in the ring and boxing.



No, that is one aspect of boxing… and is a big part of the sport of boxing… but to say that that's the only definition of boxing is inaccurate to say the least.



Hanzou said:


> Nah.



Yes. You should.



Hanzou said:


> I mean if you want to seriously argue that someone doing Tae Bo is actually learning to hit someone, then you're being silly.



No, no-one said anything about someone doing Tae Bo learning to hit someone… but we have said is that they are learning how to throw strikes and kicks (and knees, and elbows…) within the context of Tae Bo.



Hanzou said:


> So you can box without actually boxing? Interesting.



Not what he said… 



Danny T said:


> I stand corrected. Goes to show there are many martial arts and some are unknown to many of us. Thank you elder999.



Ha, yep!

To give you a bit more information, there were a number of different forms of suijutsu in Japan over it's history… and, late in the Edo Period, the then-current Tokugawa Shogun formally named 12 systems as the "official" methods of swimming. Each system had it's own specialisation, such as swimming in a river, or in the open ocean, in armour, or not, and so on… and included Kobori Ryu (in the video linked by Elder), Suifu Ryu, Shinden Ryu, Iwakura Ryu, and so on. 



elder999 said:


> Your welcome.
> 
> Funnily enough, "fighting"  isn't important to _suijutsu_ at all...



Ha, depends on the Ryu-ha… 

Some did indeed have an emphasis on fighting as part of their methods… others didn't. Some taught methods of calligraphy in water (treading hard enough to raise you up out of the water, to keep both brush and paper dry, in order to write messages)… others included Kyujutsu… and so on.

Here's a clip of Iwakura Ryu, showing a range of the aspects that can be found in the skills of Suijutsu:







Hanzou said:


> You got any video examples of this grappling outside of demonstration purposes?



This is on you-tube, so you know it's real… oh, but ignore the title… this isn't from Judo… 







Hanzou said:


> I can punch a bag and jump rope all day, doesn't mean I'm boxing.



Sure… but doing that can be part of what you're doing when you're training in boxing… so… 



Hanzou said:


> That discussion was about martial art schools (particularly MAs associated with MMA) considering themselves places where one can learn self defense. Kyudo's stance on self defense doesn't mean a whole lot in that discussion.



Er… no. Nothing like that was said at that point.



Hanzou said:


> Agreed. So what point are you trying to make here? My point is that you can do the exercises derived from boxing, but you're not doing the martial art of boxing unless you're actually boxing.



No, the argument could be made that you're not doing the sport of boxing unless you're actually boxing/competing (doing it as a sport), but that's quite different to what you're suggesting.



drop bear said:


> by your definition?
> 
> for me i would be open to the idea of pretty much anybody calling themselves a martial art.
> 
> but i am more specific about whether that martial art is any good.



What do you identify as "good", though? "Good" for what? And does your appraisal actually have any bearing on the reality?

What I'm asking is that if you're qualifying arts as "good" for only containing what you are wanting to see, regardless of what is actually there… like critiquing a character-driven tearjerker for not having enough action or comedy… or a PG rated film for not having enough explicit sexuality… in other words, what you are looking for might not be the best way to ascertain whether or not an art is "good"… 



Hanzou said:


> By common sense.
> 
> You're training in baseball for example to hit or catch a ball across a field and score points for your team. You're not training in baseball to crack someone across the head with a baseball bat.



Say, here's something interesting… 

Anthropologically speaking, all sports are originally derived from combat training, starting in tribal and village warfare, to give skills in co-ordination, teamwork, individual excellence, and more… so… all sports are, in a way, originally martial arts… 



Hanzou said:


> Boxing's goal on the other hand is to punch someone in the face and the body until that person is knocked unconscious.  The training you perform in boxing is to become more efficient at knocking someone else out.



Not quite. That's boxing's application… the goal is quite different… or, to put it another way, the goals can be quite different… 



Hanzou said:


> Why exactly would someone learn boxing if their goal isn't to actually box?



Myriad reasons ranging from fitness, to fun, to a challenge, to an outlet, to, well, just having seen Rocky too many times as a kid.

People have their own reasons for things, you know… you don't have to understand them, just accept that people have their own reasons for things. Kay?



Hanzou said:


> And when I say box, I'm not saying just in competition, i mean that they intend at some point to possibly use their boxing skills to defend themselves.



Using their skills to defend themselves… not sure I'd call that "boxing" if we're defining boxing as something particular… but more to the point, if someone is training in boxing, but not getting in the ring, are they still boxing if part of their idea is to use it maybe someday perhaps if something possibly maybe might happen kinda? Or are they not really boxing until put in that position?



Hanzou said:


> That really goes for all martial arts in general. I simply don't buy the notion that someone would join a martial art school with no intention of ever fighting with those skills. There are cheaper and more efficient ways to get in shape or improve your personality than doing Karate or Bjj for example.



So what? Sure, there might be cheaper… but if it's the method that someone prefers, or chooses for whatever reason they have, why does it have to be something you need to "buy"? I might as well say I don't buy someone starting a discussion, then changing it halfway through as they don't like being corrected or disagreed with… I don't have to buy it for you to do it… 



Hanzou said:


> You're the one telling me that karate is some sort of grappling art, yet I have to see any grappling in it outside some demonstrations by a couple of individuals. If grappling in Karate is as prevalent as you say it is, where is it?



Quick question… what do you think grappling is?



Hanzou said:


> Read posts #59 and #73.



Read them. They were questioning your inconsistent and inaccurate definitions… and had nothing to do with the discussion you were being asked about by K-man.



Hanzou said:


> None of those reasons really go against the idea that someone really only joins a martial art because they're trying to improve their fighting ability. Now certainly other things matter as well, but clearly fighting would be the primary reason.



Wow, you really still think that? Despite 8 pages here, and many, many other threads and posts telling you and detailing exactly how wrong that is?



Hanzou said:


> I have, and I've never found it. My experience with grappling karatekas is that their grappling skills are extremely low unless they've cross-trained. I know one instructor who mixes Judo with Isshin-Ryu, and he wrestled in HS, so his students are very good grapplers. However they are the exceptions.



Again, what are you calling "grappling"?



Hanzou said:


> Which I always find K-Man's claims of pure Karate grappling so interesting.



Where has the idea of "pure Karate grappling" come from? Do you simply invent what you think people are saying, and complain that it's not true?



Hanzou said:


> .......
> 
> I don't know what I expected, but that looks impractical as hell.



Well, you're half right… you didn't know what to expect. Or what you were seeing, I'd wager.



qianfeng said:


> A believe the word martial art is a translation from the Chinese word wushu or Japanese bujustu which are both the same and written 武术
> It does not mean martial ART but rather martial techniques which obviously are techniques relating or can be used in a martial kind of way. For example, the swimming in armour is needed for samurai to use when sneaking on an enemy or running away.



Er… no, it isn't. The term "martial art" is an old European term, not any translation of any Asian one. And, for the record, the Japanese use a different character for "jutsu", making "bujutsu" 武術… which literally would translate as "martial/military skills/techniques"… alternately, you could use "budo" 武道… "military/martial ways/paths"… or "bugei" 武芸 if you want to literally say "martial art".

Oh, and that's not necessarily the context of suijutsu either… although it can be… depending on the ryu-ha…


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 29, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Where did he use the word "pure"?



Grappling within Karate that isn't derived from cross-training.



qianfeng said:


> Uh I believe this throw is used in cma and Sanda as well except you don't stand that high when you are doing it and you are not grabbing the punch.





elder999 said:


> And you do understand that it comes from the kata, and isn't really demonstrating a "technique,": per se, as much as it is a principle?



Hence why I said it looks impractical.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 29, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Okay…
> 
> Really? Where did we establish anything of the kind? You made your uninformed views, based on highly limited and narrow personal interpretation of your own, ignoring the actual definitions and applications of a range of terms. In fact, I posited a different (and, if I may, more accurate and inclusive) definition, and asked how Iaido was not a martial art under that view… you didn't answer, and instead threw this up there?



Apologies Chris. Due to the length of your responses, I missed that definition. Care to repost it?



> Dude. Iaido is a martial art. Deal with it.



How when it doesn't fit the definition of a martial art?



> The primary drive behind Tae Bo is fitness… but it employs martial (combative) techniques… and, like any exercise, correct form is important.



Except the correct form isn't for martial purposes, it's for burning calories. You try to punch or kick someone with Tae Bo and you're going to hurt yourself.



> Everything…? Methinks you might not have as deep an understanding as you believe…



What aspect of Karate training isn't designed to improve your ability to do Karate techniques?



> Yeah… not so much, actually. The definition you gave of "fight" did mention "struggle", but not the way you're saying here… for one thing, it didn't say anything about "physical struggle"… nor did it say that such an idea was "included" in the definition… it was actually more limited than that (which is what I was highlighting), saying that "fight" was defined as "Take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons". In other words, the only form of struggle is a violent one which involves physical strikes (not grappling, holds, throws etc) or weapons… which doesn't match BJJ…




Fight:
: to use weapons or physical force to try to hurt someone, to defeat an enemy, etc. : to struggle in battle or physical combat

: to be involved in (a battle, struggle, etc.)

Fight - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

In Bjj we struggle in physical combat. We can use physical force to hurt someone. If we're in a self defense situation we can use our skills to defeat. An enemy.

How is Bjj not fitting that definition? Also physical blows are a pretty big part of Bjj. At least in the Gracie lineage of Bjj which I come from.




> No, the argument could be made that you're not doing the sport of boxing unless you're actually boxing/competing (doing it as a sport), but that's quite different to what you're suggesting.



No, I said the martial art of boxing, which requires actual application of boxing technique. In boxing actual boxing is pretty important.



> This is on you-tube, so you know it's real… oh, but ignore the title… this isn't from Judo…



How do you know? The description of the video pretty much says that the guy is using Judo in a karate tournament. Considering how he's the only one doing it, while the other karateka is getting tossed around kind of backs that up.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 29, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> .......
> 
> I don't know what I expected, but that looks impractical as hell.


And how could you possibly tell that from a couple of hard to make out tiny still pictures?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 29, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> And how could you possibly tell that from a couple of hard to make out tiny still pictures?



The positioning, the grips, and the fact that the leverage required is dependent on the guy leaving his arm extended after a punch.

In short, that throw would require superhuman timing. 

Try it with your friends sometime, and see how often they can move to the side, grab an arm, and throw someone in that fashion.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 29, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The positioning, the grips, and the fact that the leverage required is dependent on the guy leaving his arm extended after a punch.
> 
> In short, that throw would require superhuman timing.
> 
> Try it with your friends sometime, and see how often they can move to the side, grab an arm, and throw someone in that fashion.



-sigh-

This post amply demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what's depicted, as well as what principle based teaching is......

For the record-because I trust that you can't tell from two photographs, and can't read  the leverage required isn't "dependent on the guy leaving his arm extended after a punch" at all-and the unbalancing and uprooting comes from the legs and positioning of the _tori_ in this instance....the leverage comes from the hips. There were only nine throws depicted in Funakoshi's _Karate Do Kyohan_. This one is _Yari Dama_, "spearing through." What's happened is he's taken _control_ of the attacking arm by seizing it, stepped through deeply and *smashed and grabbed* the _testicles_ (really, the whole package, but we all know where the _pain_ is,) sliding forward and turning the poor opponent  to the left like a steering wheel,with his  right hand at six o'clock-the fellas-and his left hand at the opponents arm, and down he goes-if he didn't just collapse from having his baby-seed factory smashed.....I've actually done this-or similar-on more than one occasion, though never in the ring, of course....


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 29, 2014)

elder999 said:


> -sigh-
> 
> This post amply demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what's depicted, as well as what principle based teaching is......
> 
> For the record-because I trust that you can't tell from two photographs, and can't read  the leverage required isn't "dependent on the guy leaving his arm extended after a punch" at all-and the unbalancing and uprooting comes from the legs and positioning of the _tori_ in this instance....the leverage comes from the hips. There were only nine throws depicted in Funakoshi's _Karate Do Kyohan_. This one is _Yari Dama_, "spearing through." What's happened is he's taken _control_ of the attacking arm by seizing it, stepped through deeply and *smashed and grabbed* the _testicles_ (really, the whole package, but we all know where the _pain_ is, sliding forward and turning the poor opponent  to the left like a steering wheel,with his  right hand at six o'clock-the fellas-and his left hand at the opponents arm, and down he goes-if he didn't just collapse from having his baby-seed factory smashed.....I've actually done this-or similar-on more than one occasion, though never in the ring, of course....


I couldn't even tell where he put his second arm.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 29, 2014)

elder999 said:


> -sigh-
> 
> This post amply demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what's depicted, as well as what principle based teaching is......
> 
> For the record-because I trust that you can't tell from two photographs, and can't read  the leverage required isn't "dependent on the guy leaving his arm extended after a punch" at all-and the unbalancing and uprooting comes from the legs and positioning of the _tori_ in this instance....the leverage comes from the hips. There were only nine throws depicted in Funakoshi's _Karate Do Kyohan_. This one is _Yari Dama_, "spearing through." What's happened is he's taken _control_ of the attacking arm by seizing it, stepped through deeply and *smashed and grabbed* the _testicles_ (really, the whole package, but we all know where the _pain_ is, sliding forward and turning the poor opponent  to the left like a steering wheel,with his  right hand at six o'clock-the fellas-and his left hand at the opponents arm, and down he goes-if he didn't just collapse from having his baby-seed factory smashed.....I've actually done this-or similar-on more than one occasion, though never in the ring, of course....



Again, that's impractical. He's seizing the arm with his left hand, and stepping through (I'm assuming he's stepping through with his rear leg) to grab the testicles with his right hand, and then throwing him by pulling/lifting the seized wrist and lifting from the groin. You see this with the direction the arrows are going, and yeah the guy's arm is extended the entire time. You're really going to sit here and argue that you can throw someone just by grabbing their groin and lifting them up with *one hand*? Please demonstrate this principle.

There's a reason you never did this in the ring; No one is going to be standing there like a dummy after you caught the wrist in mid air(good luck with that in the first place), stepped through, and proceeded to reach down and grab their nut sack... Good luck maintaining control of that wrist. Good luck not getting hit in the face with their free hand.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 29, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> e.
> 
> There's a reason you never did this in the ring; No one is going to be standing there like a dummy after you caught the wrist in mid air(good luck with that in the first place), stepped through, and proceeded to reach down and grab their nut sack...



No-I've never done it in the ring because grabbing the nutsack is against the rules.

On the other hand, I've caught and controlled quite a few punches over the years. One or two (maybe three or four) were thrown well. Of course, it's not like I had to wrap my hand around their wrists-in one instance, they were wearing a down jacket. 

Again, you demonstrate a pretty clear *lack* of understanding: of martial arts, of "fighting," and of how principles are transmitted. Are you sure hat *you* actually practice a martial art? I know fighting is important for _ki-boar-do_, maybe that's your martial art, since you can't seem to settle on an avatar that represents wherever it is that you train...


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 29, 2014)

elder999 said:


> No-I've never done it in the ring because grabbing the nutsack is against the rules.



So what? You can't do a variation of the groin grab by gripping/hooking the thigh or leg instead? So in other words the entire throw is dependent on the pain generated from a one-handed nut grab?

Again, impractical.



> On the other hand, I've caught and controlled quite a few punches over the years. One or two (maybe three or four) were thrown well. Of course, it's not like I had to wrap my hand around their wrists-in one instance, they were wearing a down jacket.



So after you caught these punches, did you then pivot to a point where you actually decrease your grips power as that picture demonstrates? As a Judo man, i'm surprised you're defending that technique. Isn't that first picture a perfect set up for several Judo throws by Funakoshi's opponent?



> Again, you demonstrate a pretty clear *lack* of understanding: of martial arts, of "fighting," and of how principles are transmitted. Are you sure hat *you* actually practice a martial art? I know fighting is important for _ki-boar-do_, maybe that's your martial art, since you can't seem to settle on an avatar that represents wherever it is that you train...



Yeah, let's leave the personal attacks at home and discuss the actual technique chief.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 29, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, let's leave the personal attacks at home and discuss the actual technique chief.



"Chief?"

Speaking of personal attacks, is that some sort of racial slur?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 29, 2014)

elder999 said:


> "Chief?"
> 
> Is that some sort of racial slur?



Sigh... Looks like its time for a break.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 29, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Sigh... Looks like its time for a break.



Actually, maybe you should apologize for calling me "chief."


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 29, 2014)

Martial Arts as we practice today can be looked at as the preperation for combat When put into practice it becomes war or conflict, before that it is practice, it be as a sport or sparring or a form


----------



## elder999 (Nov 29, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I? Would I learn from an instructor that couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag? I'm forced to answer "no" to all three of those questions.


 
I knew an instructor who could barely fight his way out of a paper bag-he trained excellent fighters, though....


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> You see this with the direction the arrows are going, and yeah the guy's arm is extended the entire time.



 His arm can remain extended if the other guy is holding it there.



Hanzou said:


> There's a reason you never did this in the ring;



Because it is against the rules of most competition formats. Even grabbing on the thigh could be seen as a groin shot.



Hanzou said:


> No one is going to be standing there like a dummy after you caught the wrist in mid air(good luck with that in the first place), stepped through, and proceeded to reach down and grab their nut sack... Good luck maintaining control of that wrist. Good luck not getting hit in the face with their free hand.



There is no step through shown in the pictures, he is performing the trow from the position he was in when he grabbed the wrist.

You seem to think grabbing someones wrist is extremely difficult. This is because you do not practice a style that involves a lot of blocking so obviously it will be more difficult for you to do it. It is not that hard to do.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Apologies Chris. Due to the length of your responses, I missed that definition. Care to repost it?



Sure - 



Chris Parker said:


> That will depend on your definition of a martial art (we'll get to the troublesome "dictionary" definition in a bit…), but for me, a martial art is a codified and formalised set of skills, methods, and applications based on or around combative or combatively themed actions and specific contexts. And, in that sense, how is it not a martial art?





Hanzou said:


> How when it doesn't fit the definition of a martial art?



What definition? The incomplete, inaccurate, and largely incorrect one you found, or an actual definition?

Oh, and before you get all huffy about arguing with a dictionary, read on… it's been said before, but you'll get to read it again… 



Hanzou said:


> Except the correct form isn't for martial purposes, it's for burning calories. You try to punch or kick someone with Tae Bo and you're going to hurt yourself.



Eh, you try to kick or hit someone with a lot of methods, and you're going to hurt yourself… and sure, Tae Bo doesn't claim to be a martial art… but that wasn't the point. The question was always what you were labelling as combatively derived ("fighting") components… so far, you haven't been clear on that. You're seeming to have a largely subjective definition… one where, if it doesn't match what you expect it to be, it isn't a martial art… I got news for you… there are lots of martial arts that don't match what you'd expect. To be blunt, I'd consider Iaido far more of a "martial art" than MMA, BJJ, or anything of the kind… but that's my perspective.



Hanzou said:


> What aspect of Karate training isn't designed to improve your ability to do Karate techniques?



Meditation, conditioning, proper etiquette, care and maintenance of your uniform, including wearing it properly… of course, I might note that you have changed your parameters yet again… 



Hanzou said:


> Fight:
> : to use weapons or physical force to try to hurt someone, to defeat an enemy, etc. : to struggle in battle or physical combat
> 
> : to be involved in (a battle, struggle, etc.)
> ...



From before… you might have missed this part as well… 



Chris Parker said:


> Right. Here's the problem with dictionary definitions… they are designed to offer a basic, un-nuanced, and largely generalised overview, often devoid of specific context, to give an introduction to someone wanting a grasp of a term. They are never exhaustive, and, when it comes to things like this, generalised to the point of inaccuracy. To be frank, I don't agree with the definition given… it's a popular-media answer, not a genuine understanding.
> 
> In other words, don't look to that when dealing with people who actually know the topic.
> 
> ...



Kay?



Hanzou said:


> In Bjj we struggle in physical combat. We can use physical force to hurt someone. If we're in a self defense situation we can use our skills to defeat. An enemy.



Sure… I'd say that's a fairly liberal usage of the term "enemy", but I come from a rather different background… where that term is very specific, and has some quite clear-cut implications that go well beyond what you're talking about… 



Hanzou said:


> How is Bjj not fitting that definition?



That wasn't the definition you gave earlier… that was the point. The definition you gave was incomplete and inaccurate… it wasn't that BJJ wasn't a martial art, or didn't involve fighting in a particular context, it was that your given definitions were lacking. Again, you missed the context of what was being said.



Hanzou said:


> Also physical blows are a pretty big part of Bjj. At least in the Gracie lineage of Bjj which I come from.



Okay. They were an almost unheard of aspect in the Gracie lineage I trained in… and what I've seen have been very unimpressive… but, of course, there's no reason to bring up the fact that an art that specialises in one area might be lacking in another… 



Hanzou said:


> No, I said the martial art of boxing, which requires actual application of boxing technique. In boxing actual boxing is pretty important.



Considering it's largely martial artists who would ever talk about the "martial art of boxing", and rarely boxers themselves, you might find the terminology you're using largely irrelevant… but, more to the point, I know what you said, and gave you the "sport of boxing" as a correction. Not as a simple usage of an alternate term. 



Hanzou said:


> How do you know? The description of the video pretty much says that the guy is using Judo in a karate tournament. Considering how he's the only one doing it, while the other karateka is getting tossed around kind of backs that up.



Because I can see what's in the video, I can recognise when it's Judo or not, I can see the throws in karate, and so on. Oh, and the comments on the video agree with me, for the record… pointing out that the throws/grappling methods shown are part of karate…


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> His arm can remain extended if the other guy is holding it there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, given Funakoshi's relationship with his Okinawan homeboys, and the Japanese, and what went into _giving_ the Japanese *空手*?,_karate_ *empty hand*, as opposed to the Okinawan's 唐手, _kara/tang te_, *China hand*, what isn't shown in the photographs of the throws is of no small importance-he is stepping through with the strike to the groin, but he's also doing something else that isn't shown.

As for practicing by grabbing the thigh, we actually practice this and _sukuinage_ by grabbing the gi bottoms-I've ripped the groin right out of a few older pairs, over the years....


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 30, 2014)

elder999 said:


> Actually, given Funakoshi's relationship with his Okinawan homeboys, and the Japanese, and what went into _giving_ the Japanese *空手*?,_karate_ *empty hand*, as opposed to the Okinawan's 唐手, _kara/tang te_, *China hand*, what isn't shown in the photographs of the throws is of no small importance-he is stepping through with the strike to the groin, but he's also doing something else that isn't shown.
> 
> As for practicing by grabbing the thigh, we actually practice this and _sukuinage_ by grabbing the gi bottoms-I've ripped the groin right out of a few older pairs, over the years....


I didn't say he was not stepping through at all I just said he did not step through in the photos


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> I didn't say he was not stepping through at all I just said he did not step through in the photos


Hard to tell everything  being done for any of those nine throws in that book-'cept maybe the last one.... Would you like to see them?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> His arm can remain extended if the other guy is holding it there.



Really? You actually believe that you can keep someone's arm extended simply by grabbing their wrist? He isn't even in the direction of the extension, so in order to maintain the extension, he needs to pull his opponent's arm (and thus his opponent's entire body) using just his shoulder muscle. Good luck with that. Your shoulder versus his entire body? Who do you think is going to win that one?



> Because it is against the rules of most competition formats. Even grabbing on the thigh could be seen as a groin shot.



Depends on the competition rules really. Groin shots tend to be a universal no-no, but hooking the thigh/upper leg or gripping the pants tends to be fair game. You could attempt this in MMA for example. However no one in MMA would be crazy enough to attempt this.



> You seem to think grabbing someones wrist is extremely difficult. This is because you do not practice a style that involves a lot of blocking so obviously it will be more difficult for you to do it. It is not that hard to do.



I don't think grabbing someone's wrist is difficult at all. I think grabbing someone's wrist while they're trying to punch you in the face or body is extremely difficult. It is also extremely difficult to control a person's entire body with one arm. 

Of course I'm talking to someone who think they can punch and kick their way out of side control and the mount, so I shouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> What definition? The incomplete, inaccurate, and largely incorrect one you found, or an actual definition?



In your opinion.



> Eh, you try to kick or hit someone with a lot of methods, and you're going to hurt yourself… and sure, Tae Bo doesn't claim to be a martial art… but that wasn't the point. The question was always what you were labelling as combatively derived ("fighting") components… so far, you haven't been clear on that. You're seeming to have a largely subjective definition… one where, if it doesn't match what you expect it to be, it isn't a martial art… I got news for you… there are lots of martial arts that don't match what you'd expect.



Actually I've been very clear cut. The fact that Tae Bo doesn't claim to be a martial art kind of makes my point for me, and fits right along with my entire argument.



> To be blunt, I'd consider Iaido far more of a "martial art" than MMA, BJJ, or anything of the kind… but that's my perspective.



If you're using Elder's description of Iaido it most certainly is not. However, I would be very interested in hearing your argument for that, since I know you disagreed with Elder's description of Iaido earlier in the thread.



> Meditation, conditioning, proper etiquette, care and maintenance of your uniform, including wearing it properly… of course, I might note that you have changed your parameters yet again…



You seriously don't see how those attributes don't improve your karate techniques?

Conditioning increases your endurance, coordination, flexibility, and toughness. All of which is important in performing technique.

Proper etiquette, Meditation, general cleanliness, respect, etc. is simply aspects of discipline and self control. Again, important parts of becoming a better fighter. You can look at any sports team or athlete who doesn't have good discipline or self control, and they tend to be pretty terrible at their sport because the lack of self control and discipline seeps into your actual ability to perform.




> Sure… I'd say that's a fairly liberal usage of the term "enemy", but I come from a rather different background… where that term is very specific, and has some quite clear-cut implications that go well beyond what you're talking about…



So you wouldn't consider someone trying to attack you or your family and possibly trying to take your life an "enemy"?




> That wasn't the definition you gave earlier… that was the point. The definition you gave was incomplete and inaccurate… it wasn't that BJJ wasn't a martial art, or didn't involve fighting in a particular context, it was that your given definitions were lacking. Again, you missed the context of what was being said.



I took the liberty of going back and looking up the definition of fight I gave earlier (actually Danny T gave it, but anyways...)

*



			Fight
		
Click to expand...

*


> : to use weapons or physical force to try to hurt someone, to defeat an enemy, etc. : to struggle in battle or physical combat
> : to be involved in (a battle, struggle, etc.) involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons.



Physical force to hurt someone or defeat an enemy= Bjj.
To struggle in battle or physical combat= Bjj
To be involved in a battle/struggle, etc. involving the exchange of physical blows= Bjj.

Your context was that Bjj doesn't fit the definition of fight that I was using. Its not that I didn't understand the context of what you were saying. Its that the context of what your were saying was wrong.



> Okay. They were an almost unheard of aspect in the Gracie lineage I trained in… and what I've seen have been very unimpressive… but, of course, there's no reason to bring up the fact that an art that specialises in one area might be lacking in another…



So..... they're almost unheard of in what you trained in, yet the Bjj strikes you've seen were unimpressive to you?

Okay.... So are we in agreement that there IS striking in Bjj? 

If you observe the Gracies in action vids, there's plenty of striking being done by the Gracies and their students. Is it pretty? No. Is it effective? Yes.



> Because I can see what's in the video, I can recognise when it's Judo or not, I can see the throws in karate, and so on. Oh, and the comments on the video agree with me, for the record… pointing out that the throws/grappling methods shown are part of karate…



So you're saying that Judo doesn't teach hip throws and foot sweeps?

Interestingly, I've done both Karate and Judo. I have a black belt in Shotokan, and I took Judo briefly in college, and I continue to take Judo since its offered at my Bjj school. The first time I learned a hip throw was in Judo. The second time I learned hip throws was in Bjj. I never learned hip throws or any throws for that matter, in Karate.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou you may not have learned a hip[ throw in your study of Karate but I sure did and in fact I learned it over and over thill I could do it without thinking when attacked. I learned other throws also.
Those I learned from my instructor the ones withinf the forms he made me find for mylsef and then show him when I found them and explain the how and why of the move along with the other possibilities of that movement.
Again itt may depend on the instructor, his knowledge, what he wishes to pass on at a certian time in a students training, and it may depende on the style/system and what has been passed down through time


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

tshadowchaser said:


> Hanzou you may not have learned a hip[ throw in your study of Karate but I sure did and in fact I learned it over and over thill I could do it without thinking when attacked. I learned other throws also.
> Those I learned from my instructor the ones withinf the forms he made me find for mylsef and then show him when I found them and explain the how and why of the move along with the other possibilities of that movement.
> Again itt may depend on the instructor, his knowledge, what he wishes to pass on at a certian time in a students training, and it may depende on the style/system and what has been passed down through time



I certainly don't doubt that there are Karate systems out there that teach the hip throw. In my neck of the woods, they don't unless the instructor has cross-trained. You kind of see it in that video where one Karateka is constantly utilizing throws while the other is completely dumbfounded by it and has no way to counter them. That (along with the title and description of the vid) indicates that the Karateka doing the throws had cross-trained in Judo either on his own or via his instructor.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 30, 2014)

tshadowchaser said:


> Hanzou you may not have learned a hip[ throw in your study of Karate but I sure did and in fact I learned it over and over thill I could do it without thinking when attacked. I learned other throws also.
> Those I learned from my instructor the ones withinf the forms he made me find for mylsef and then show him when I found them and explain the how and why of the move along with the other possibilities of that movement.
> Again itt may depend on the instructor, his knowledge, what he wishes to pass on at a certian time in a students training, and it may depende on the style/system and what has been passed down through time



Yea, I agree shadowchaser my experiences are similar.
Let's see, 
Shotokan in 71 & 72, throws, takedowns, arm and leg locks, & chokes. Yes we did.
Goju Ryu in 73 -74, throws, takedowns, arm and leg locks, & chokes. Yeap did that.
Shotokan 75-76, different instructor, different school. Yes here again.
TKD 73-74, I realize it isn't Karate but non the less. Yes we did throws & etc in this training. Wasn't just kicking.

I also know of 8 Shotokan schools and 3 Karate (???) schools in my area all but 1 has..., wait for it... they have; here it is. Throws!! And all they do is Karate but for one that does also do BJJ (BJJ Revelution). 

The thing is Hanzou, you won't admit your training is limited, your knowledge is limited and will not allow that others have experiences different from you and therefore perspective is different from yours. Not that theirs is right or wrong just different. It is because you won't allow other's perspectives it makes you wrong.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

Danny T said:


> Yea, I agree shadowchaser my experiences are similar.
> Let's see,
> Shotokan in 71 & 72, throws, takedowns, arm and leg locks, & chokes. Yes we did.
> Goju Ryu in 73 -74, throws, takedowns, arm and leg locks, & chokes. Yeap did that.
> ...



I disagree. I'm certainly open to other people's perspectives, however if you're going to tell me that throws are widely taught in Shotokan karate, I simply disagree with that argument. Hell, based on what you said above, there's almost as many throws in Shotokan, Goju, and TKD as there are in Kodokan Judo. In all seriousness, where would one have time to teach all of that on top of all the stances, strikes, and katas in any given form of Karate?

To compound this, I can pull up various vids of Karate or TKD exponents free sparring, and none of them are performing any throws or takedowns whatsoever. You might see someone catch a leg and sweep, or perform a sloppy clinch throw, but certainly nothing on the level to indicate they have a high level of grappling experience, which is exactly the argument you're making above.

Listen, I don't doubt that you went to some random dojos and learned 70+ grappling techniques, but to say that that is somehow the norm is a dubious argument at best.

Perhaps you could provide the websites/names of these schools?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

I'm not Shotokan, I'm Wado Ryu and most certainly there are throws in our karate and we are taught them use them too. Grappling has always been in karate, just that the emphasis was put on striking but the grappling _is_ there.  Before the Queensbury rules there was also grappling in boxing.
Iain Abernethy has a couple of very good books on the grappling in karate with examples from the kata.
I have said before and will say again that videos on the internet prove nothing whatsoever, other than that people like to post videos. That there is no 'throws or takedowns' in the 'free sparring' videos isn't a surprise, no more than _not_ finding a Bo being used in an MMA competition. Time, place and rules.
As you like videos so much.......


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

And just to keep you busy with all those 'there's no grappling/takedowns in karate' thoughts


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

Karate Grappling Did It Really Exist Iain Abernethy


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

Wado-Ryu is a hybrid combination of Shotokan and Jujutsu, so that doesn't surprise me.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I
> Interestingly, I've done both Karate and Judo. *I have a black belt in Shotokan,* and I took Judo briefly in college, and I continue to take Judo since its offered at my Bjj school. The first time I learned a hip throw was in Judo. The second time I learned hip throws was in Bjj. I never learned hip throws or any throws for that matter, in Karate.


Well, *that's interesting. You must recognize these, then.....
:
        
*
I mean, _Karate Kyohon_ is *Funakoshi's* book. You know, _*Funakoshi,*_ the _*creator *_of "*Shotokan?"* In fact, the very name "Shotokan," comes from _his_ name, and all of these throws are in the kata you had to learn to earn your "black belt."

I mean, did they teach "Shotokan" where you learned "Shotokan," or was it just another Hanzou Naruto_ Ki board do_ dojo?
*
Oh, and don't ever call me "chief" again.*


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

Roflmao, I knew you'd say something like that, had a quid on with husband.
Oh dear, now I've finished laughing.....you stated karate doesn't contain take downs and grappling, so now you are qualifying it?
I take it only the karate you name as being karate counts? Despite the fact that grappling and takedowns were always in karate? That Tegumi doesn't exist? that the Japanese arts weren't heavily influenced by Chinese boxing which contained wrestling ( back to 2000 BCE by all accounts)? Oh I forgot because you weren't taught these in karate they therefore don't exist.
Boxing contained a lot of grappling and takedowns, holds and ground fighting. Look up James Figg and how he won his title against Sutton in 1727, but of course because there's only punches in boxing and that's what's taught now there can never have been grappling etc in boxing.
Wado Ryu is karate absolutely no doubt, not a hybrid. Ohtsuka Sensei just understood the grappling and takedowns that were already in karate better than some other masters. He was a Jujutsu master so had the interest to use the techniques already found in karate, he didn't add them.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

and Elder's excellent post proves my point because Shotokan came before Wado Ryu.....


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 30, 2014)

Thanks for the dislike in my post #2 Tames D, maybe you care to share your thoughts on the subject too? Todeloo.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou there are multiple people with Dan rankings in multiple styles of Karate all telling you what exists in the style they have spent many years in.  Yet you who have no experience in these styles keep telling them they are wrong.  So how are you such in expert in all these styles that you know what is taught in these styles if you have never studied them?


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 30, 2014)

No throws in karate hah, there is no breathing in BJJ either now is there? /sarcasm


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Hanzou there are multiple people with Dan rankings in multiple styles of Karate all telling you what exists in the style they have spent many years in.  Yet you who have no experience in these styles keep telling them they are wrong.  So how are you such in expert in all these styles that you know what is taught in these styles if you have never studied them?



Oh, he has a "black belt" in Shotokan. DIdn't you know-the very art ffom which the book containing those "impractical" throws I posted came from-in fact, those photos depict the progenitor of that art, you know, the one [he says he has a "black belt" in?



Hanzou said:


> I.
> Interestingly, I've done both Karate and Judo. I have a black belt in Shotokan, and I took Judo briefly in college, and I continue to take Judo since its offered at my Bjj school. The first time I learned a hip throw was in Judo. The second time I learned hip throws was in Bjj. I never learned hip throws or any throws for that matter, in Karate.



Oh, for a r:lfao: smiley right about now......


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 30, 2014)

elder999 said:


> Oh, for a r:lfao: smiley right about now......


You must be going through withdrawals that was your Go to smiley


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Hanzou there are multiple people with Dan rankings in multiple styles of Karate all telling you what exists in the style they have spent many years in.  Yet you who have no experience in these styles keep telling them they are wrong.  So how are you such in expert in all these styles that you know what is taught in these styles if you have never studied them?




If there is no video of the technique etc on You Tube it therefore does not exist!


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> You must be going through withdrawals that was your Go to smiley


I'm tellin' ya man, it's killin' me! I mean, these just don't do it for me:


I mean__


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 30, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> If there is no video of the technique etc on You Tube it therefore does not exist!



Nothing on youtube, damn it is over. We must send Wolverine back in time to add throws to karate or all is lost like in that movie Days of Future Past! The Age of Hanzou is here.


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

I was determined to leave others to comment on the crap being spouted in this thread but it just gets worse. *Hanzou*, you keep stating obvious inaccuracies, at best, or untruths, if you want to call a spade a spade, as facts.



Hanzou said:


> I disagree. I'm certainly open to other people's perspectives, ...



Really? You could have fooled me.



Hanzou said:


> Hell, based on what you said above, there's almost as many throws in Shotokan, Goju, and TKD as there are in Kodokan Judo. In all seriousness, where would one have time to teach all of that on top of all the stances, strikes, and katas in any given form of Karate?


Perhaps that's the first part of your karate training as a junior was lacking and again demonstrates your total lack of understanding of a martial art in which you are claiming to be an expert based on zero knowledge. It could also demonstrate that your instructor also had limited knowledge of karate. In terms of recognised judo throws only a small number occur in Goju, probably about 10. Most of those are sweeps or reaps with a couple of hip throws . These are all in the kata so practising the kata means you are practising throws and takedowns. The fact that you totally ignored the application of kata and dismissed kata as useless pretty much ensured your karate training was a total waste of time apart from the sport sparring aspect of it it but I am pretty much restating what you said in another post when you mentioned leaving karate training was the best thing you did.



Hanzou said:


> To compound this, I can pull up various vids of Karate or TKD exponents free sparring, and none of them are performing any throws or takedowns whatsoever. You might see someone catch a leg and sweep, or perform a sloppy clinch throw, but certainly nothing on the level to indicate they have a high level of grappling experience, which is exactly the argument you're making above.
> 
> Listen, I don't doubt that you went to some random dojos and learned 70+ grappling techniques, but to say that that is somehow the norm is a dubious argument at best.


You can pull up all the competition free sparring you like and you won't see many locks holds or takedowns because karate was not developed for that sort of sparring. That is a sporting aspect started in Japan that has ignored a large part of basic karate teaching.

And again you are exaggerating. Nobody is claiming is claiming 70+ grappling techniques.



Chris Parker said:


> Everything…? Methinks you might not have as deep an understanding as you believe…



Never a truer word spoken.



Chris Parker said:


> But the real issue here is that you're applying false and incredibly narrow definitions to everything in this thread… you're only applying a flawed and inaccurate dictionary definition of "martial arts"… same with "fight"… you're ignoring martial arts that you don't see the connection with (such as Iaido above, stating that "we had already determined it wasn't a martial art")… and now you're saying that you only want to deal with mainstream modern arts that you think match what you think martial arts are.
> 
> This isn't an issue of semantics, it's an issue of a complete lack of depth in understanding (which isn't a problem in itself) combined with a complete inability or unwillingness to improve upon that state of affairs (which is a problem if you're wanting to discuss these ideas). Seriously, you asked people who train in arts where the idea of "fighting" isn't so important to explain that to you… and are fighting against every answer you get.


This is so true I think you need to read it again.



Chris Parker said:


> This is on you-tube, so you know it's real… oh, but ignore the title… this isn't from Judo…
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now this is an interesting clip. I hope, *Hanzou*, that you watched it carefully. It demonstrates the karateka's knowledge of and the footwork from the stances you dismissed as irrelevant. He uses Sanchin dachi in the simple takedowns, he is stepping out into Zenkutsu dachi and transitioning into Shiko dachi in some of the others. This is exactly what is taught in basic Goju. Absolutely nothing to do with judo and absolutely 'pure' Goju Ryu.



Chris Parker said:


> Quick question… what do you think grappling is?


Another good question it I doubt we'll get a detailed answer.



Chris Parker said:


> Where has the idea of "pure Karate grappling" come from? Do you simply invent what you think people are saying, and complain that it's not true?


Sadly, this is definitely the case.


Now let's address where again you misquoted me with the word 'pure'.


Hanzou said:


> Grappling within Karate that isn't derived from cross-training.


The video posted by Chris is basic stances. 'Pure' karate. The kata are full of locks holds and takedowns. Again, 'pure' karate.

You don't even understand the reasons why people cross train. I didn't start Aikido to learn Aikido. I started Aikido to better understand the applications within my Goju. I studied striking from a Shotokan guy to make my strikes in Goju more powerful. I studied Systema to better understand how to absorb punches and move in the most economical way within my karate. Certainly I learned a little from BJJ that wasn't in Goju, but that was so I could escape from a grappler, not to compete with one.




Hanzou said:


> It is also extremely difficult to control a person's entire body with one arm.


What crap! I'm sure even you have applied an arm bar. The same is true of a properly applied wrist lock.



Hanzou said:


> You seriously don't see how those attributes don't improve your karate techniques?
> 
> Conditioning increases your endurance, coordination, flexibility, and toughness. All of which is important in performing technique.
> 
> Proper etiquette, Meditation, general cleanliness, respect, etc. is simply aspects of discipline and self control. Again, important parts of becoming a better fighter. You can look at any sports team or athlete who doesn't have good discipline or self control, and they tend to be pretty terrible at their sport because the lack of self control and discipline seeps into your actual ability to perform.


Isn't it irony? You can see the great benefit of these things within karate that, in your humble opinion, improve karate technique but dismiss kata as a waste of time.




Hanzou said:


> So..... they're almost unheard of in what you trained in, yet the Bjj strikes you've seen were unimpressive to you?
> 
> Okay.... So are we in agreement that there IS striking in Bjj?
> 
> If you observe the Gracies in action vids, there's plenty of striking being done by the Gracies and their students. Is it pretty? No. Is it effective? Yes.


More irony. Striking is now a big part of BJJ, despite being rarely seen, but striking doesn't exist in Aikido and grappling isn't a big part of karate.




Hanzou said:


> Interestingly, I've done both Karate and Judo. I have a black belt in Shotokan, and I took Judo briefly in college, and I continue to take Judo since its offered at my Bjj school. The first time I learned a hip throw was in Judo. The second time I learned hip throws was in Bjj. I never learned hip throws or any throws for that matter, in Karate.


Sadly, we've already established that you learned little from your karate training, just as you have learned nothing from other people's experience here on MT.



Hanzou said:


> I certainly don't doubt that there are Karate systems out there that teach the hip throw. In my neck of the woods, they don't unless the instructor has cross-trained. You kind of see it in that video where one Karateka is constantly utilizing throws while the other is completely dumbfounded by it and has no way to counter them. That (along with the title and description of the vid) indicates that the Karateka doing the throws had cross-trained in Judo either on his own or via his instructor.


Personally I don't classify these takedowns as throws but I'm happy for you to call them that. If you were a *first time* student in my dojo I would show you each of those takedowns to demonstrate the application of the basic stances you learn from day 1. Another irony. A karateka who is being outclassed is normal but a karateka using basic training must have learned it elsewhere


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 30, 2014)

Come on, we all knew where this thread was headed the moment we read the OP. Hanzou`s intent was crystal clear and I won`t be overly civil to pretend I did not know he would spout hundereds of lines of unrefined BS all over again. It is not the season for fertilizing the fields so maybe it is time to say the circus has gone on long enough.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> Come on, we all knew where this thread was headed the moment we read the OP. Hanzou`s intent was crystal clear and I won`t be overly civil to pretend I did not know he would spout hundereds of lines of unrefined BS all over again. It is not the season for fertilizing the fields so maybe it is time to say the circus has gone on long enough.


Careful there-the black belt in "Shotokan," Grandmaster of _kibordeaux_ will get ya! 

I mean, this is _Hanzou_  Here's a video from the _kibordeaux_ dojo!


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

That's why I elected to pull out of the discussion several pages back ... but when you read so much crap spouted as fact ...

Where the hell is my BS emoticon?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

Sooo, is it down the pub now guys as it's time to talk of other things such as cabbages and kings? 

Where's *my* rofl emoticon?


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

elder999 said:


> Careful there-the black belt in "Shotokan," Grandmaster of _kibordeaux_ will get ya!
> 
> I mean, this is _Hanzou_  Here's a video from the _kibordeaux_ dojo!


Yeah, well it's obvious why Hanzou lost this fight. It didn't go to the ground so he had to rely on the skills he learned from his childhood in Shotokan and didn't get a chance to grapple.


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Sooo, is it down the pub now guys as it's time to talk of other things such as cabbages and kings?
> 
> Where's *my* rofl emoticon?


Please have one for me. 

No, please have a couple of double scotches. I need it after reading some of this stuff!


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Wado Ryu is karate absolutely no doubt, not a hybrid. Ohtsuka Sensei just understood the grappling and takedowns that were already in karate better than some other masters. He was a Jujutsu master so had the interest to use the techniques already found in karate, he didn't add them.



So you're saying that Ohtsuka's Jujutsu background had no impact on how he developed or taught Wado Ryu whatsoever?


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 30, 2014)

Scotch sounds good, with ice please it chills BS in the air and makes it go away.

Argh more of it, a triple please!.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying that Ohtsuka's Jujutsu background had no impact on how he taught Wado Ryu whatsoever?


No, we're saying that we're no longer taking anything you have to say seriously.

Once you bring out the _ridiculous_, I bring on the *ridicule!
*
Here's some more footage of _*Hanzou*_, from the grounds of the _ki-bor do_ dojo.

I mean, it's gotta be real-it's on youtube, right?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying that Ohtsuka's Jujutsu background had no impact on how he developed or taught Wado Ryu whatsoever?




No dear I am not, I wrote what I wrote and will not unwrite just because you cannot understand what I wrote.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 30, 2014)

There is room for everybody here Hanzou but if you put on the jester`s cap with bells and all while telling tall tales and playing a merry tune at some point we will reward your fine performance with a good laugh. Cheers!


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

K-man said:


> Perhaps that's the first part of your karate training as a junior was lacking and again demonstrates your total lack of understanding of a martial art in which you are claiming to be an expert based on zero knowledge. It could also demonstrate that your instructor also had limited knowledge of karate. In terms of recognised judo throws only a small number occur in Goju, probably about 10. Most of those are sweeps or reaps with a couple of hip throws . These are all in the kata so practising the kata means you are practising throws and takedowns. The fact that you totally ignored the application of kata and dismissed kata as useless pretty much ensured your karate training was a total waste of time apart from the sport sparring aspect of it it but I am pretty much restating what you said in another post when you mentioned leaving karate training was the best thing you did.



Well for starters I never claimed to be an expert in Karate. Further,  I was responding to the notion that there were 70+ grappling abilities within Karate and TKD. If all of that grappling is "hidden" in the kata, I'm not surprised that its almost nonexistent in modern karate. Its pretty hard teaching grappling from a kata.



> You can pull up all the competition free sparring you like and you won't see many locks holds or takedowns because karate was not developed for that sort of sparring. That is a sporting aspect started in Japan that has ignored a large part of basic karate teaching.



Pretty hard to learn grappling without sparring as well.



> And again you are exaggerating. Nobody is claiming is claiming 70+ grappling techniques.



Scroll up, that's exactly the numbers Danny T mentioned.



> More irony. Striking is now a big part of BJJ, despite being rarely seen, but striking doesn't exist in Aikido and grappling isn't a big part of karate.



Most people's first experience with Bjj was in the UFC. Royce did plenty of striking in that. Same applies to the Gracie in Action films. Again, plenty of striking. There's also this;






Enjoy.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 30, 2014)

I guess some of us LEARNED mawatte on the first day in ka-rotty, while others went trough the motions. But oh it is so HIDDEN!

Another scotch please, extra ice!


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> No dear I am not, I wrote what I wrote and will not unwrite just because you cannot understand what I wrote.



So you contradicted yourself.

Interesting.


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying that Ohtsuka's Jujutsu background had no impact on how he developed or taught Wado Ryu whatsoever?


Perhaps if you even read a little of the history of Wado Ryu you wouldn't run off from the lip as much. Otsuka took his knowledge of Shotokan and after training with the Okinawan karate guys, Choki Motobu and Kenwa Mabuni (both basically Shorin Ryu) recognised that a lot of the basic Okinawan karate was missing from Shotokan. As a top jujutsu man he was able to put back into his karate what he recognised was missing from Shotokan and that he had seen in Shorin Ryu. Nothing more or less than what is intrinsically Okinawan Karate.


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So you contradicted yourself.
> 
> Interesting.


No. As Tez explained, you just don't understand! I have trouble believing that someone with even limited knowledge of the English language could be so obtuse so I can only conclude that you are deliberately ignoring what you are being told.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)

K-man said:


> Perhaps if you even read a little of the history of Wado Ryu you wouldn't run off from the lip as much. Otsuka took his knowledge of Shotokan and after training with the Okinawan karate guys, Choki Motobu and Kenwa Mabuni (both basically Shorin Ryu) recognised that a lot of the basic Okinawan karate was missing from Shotokan. As a top jujutsu man he was able to put back into his karate what he recognised was missing from Shotokan and that he had seen in Shorin Ryu. Nothing more or less than what is intrinsically Okinawan Karate.


 
I'm gonna have to disagree here.

Ohtsuka was menkyo kaiden in Shindo Yoshin Ryu, before he studied with Funakoshi. That's a fact.

And now, for another real youtube video from _Hanzou's kiboredo dojo._


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So you contradicted yourself.
> 
> Interesting.



No. You didn't understand what I said, so no I didn't contradict myself . In fact you don't actually read and comprehend what people write. I said it was his interest in and knowledge of Jujutsu that enabled him to use it in his style but of course that's not want you want to read. You want an argument, you want to be right all the time in your assertions and will actually twist people's words to make them fit what you think. If you aren't going to be honest when discussing things there's little point in discussing anything with you is there?
While you are entitled to your own opinions you are not entitled to your own facts.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 30, 2014)

Where Hanzou lives:


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

As to the importance of fighting.

Here is an interesting clip of fighting compilation starting with some grappling that develops into no gi as the bout continues.

The second part demonstrates the difficulty of training on uneven and unstable terrain.

Next there is an example of two different styles clashing then one showing a reverse strike from the extended appendage.

Next part demonstrates using your body to move a taller opponent ... then the old adage, "if it looks like a duck".

This is followed by some interesting backyard sparring followed by an example of a strangle or choke using leverage. Then follows a good example of fighting from your back on the ground against a standing opponent.

Ther's a bit of bull and a bit on maintaining your balance and a nice bit of straight wrestling.

Enjoy the clip. I'm sure you'll get more from it than from a lot of the other posts here.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> No. You didn't understand what I said, so no I didn't contradict myself . In fact you don't actually read and comprehend what people write. I said it was his interest in and knowledge of Jujutsu that enabled him to use it in his style but of course that's not want you want to read. You want an argument, you want to be right all the time in your assertions and will actually twist people's words to make them fit what you think. If you aren't going to be honest when discussing things there's little point in discussing anything with you is there?
> While you are entitled to your own opinions you are not entitled to your own facts.



C'mon, Irene,(Hey, isn't there a song in there??`) get with the program-it makes more sense to ridicule his posts than to even attempt to answering them seriously.

And now, an oldie but a goodie, a special prize for Hanzou to hang on the wall of the _ki-bor do dojo,



 
_


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> No. You didn't understand what I said, so no I didn't contradict myself . In fact you don't actually read and comprehend what people write. I said it was his interest in and knowledge of Jujutsu that enabled him to use it in his style but of course that's not want you want to read. You want an argument, you want to be right all the time in your assertions and will actually twist people's words to make them fit what you think. If you aren't going to be honest when discussing things there's little point in discussing anything with you is there?
> While you are entitled to your own opinions you are not entitled to your own facts.



You posted your style of Karate to prove that there were styles of Karate that taught a great deal of throws. Unfortunately, your particular style of Karate is a mixture of Karate and Jujutsu.

Let me know when my opinion came into play.


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> I guess some of us LEARNED mawatte on the first day in ka-rotty, while others went trough the motions. But oh it is so HIDDEN!
> 
> Another scotch please, extra ice!


Oh dear! Your not going to tell me that's not just a turn are you. I mean, we all know there are no takedowns in karate because all fighting is from 2 metres apart. I know that for a fact 'cos I've seen it on YouTube.


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> You posted your style of Karate to prove that there were styles of Karate that taught a great deal of throws. Unfortunately, *your particular style of Karate is a mixture of Karate and Jujutsu.*
> 
> Let me know when my opinion came into play.


This is your opinion from a position of ignorance. Those of us that know better recognise that many, if not most of the Jujutsu techniques are contained within traditional karate.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 30, 2014)

K-man said:


> Oh dear! Your not going to tell me that's not just a turn are you. I mean, we all know there are no takedowns in karate because all fighting is from 2 metres apart. I know that for a fact 'cos I've seen it on YouTube.



Well since I`ve had several scotches by now I will tell you the super secrecht application of the mawatthee, you turn your bachk on the enemy and catch him by suprise with a great schmelly fart! Instant win!!


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

elder999 said:


> C'mon, Irene,(Hey, isn't there a song in there??`) get with the program-it makes more sense to ridicule his posts than to even attempt to answering them seriously.
> 
> And now, an oldie but a goodie, a special prize for Hanzou to hang on the wall of the _ki-bor do dojo,
> 
> View attachment 19056 _


Been thinking about your rabbit quite a bit over the past posts so I thought I raise you a pup. 
(And I would if I could only get my image to load. )


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

K-man said:


> This is your opinion from a position of ignorance. Those of us that know better recognise that many, if not most of the Jujutsu techniques are contained within traditional karate.



Well, feel free to explain this "ignorance" to various Wado Ryu federations around the globe who contain descriptions such as this on their websites;



> While still a student of Funakoshi, Ohtsuka Sensei began to experiment with various sparring ideas and jujitsu techniques. * Ohtsuka Sensei wanted to incorporate Shindo Yoshin’s jujitsu techniques with Funakoshi’s karate techniques to create what he felt was a more complete system and left Funakoshi to create what is now known as Wado Ryu.  *Ohtsuka Sensei also studied with and borrowed ideas from other karate notables such as Kenwa Mabuni, the founder of Shito Ryu, and Choki Motobu, famous for his Naihanchi kata and street fighting skills.


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

Ah! There we go! And some timely advice as well.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

Ohtsuka Sensei cannot be any of those things because I can't find it on You Tube! I only know he existed because he has videos on there!


Hanzou said:


> You posted your style of Karate to prove that there were styles of Karate that taught a great deal of throws. Unfortunately, your particular style of Karate is a mixture of Karate and Jujutsu.
> 
> Let me know when my opinion came into play.




Where is that damn rofl emoticon when you need it? Please please can we have our old emoticons back!

Hanzou, Hanzou, what are we going to do with you, throws it is now, just throws? You see, despite everything you've been told about Wado you still persist in misunderstanding and putting your own spin on what is being said. Your own spin is fine for Masterchef, they like things like that there but dear me, it's not the truth when it comes to martial arts. As I said if we are going to keep to the truth of things not much point in talking really, much better to agree you are wrong.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Well, feel free to explain this "ignorance" to various Wado Ryu federations around the globe who contain descriptions such as this on their websites;



You didn't understand again did you, you posted it up and you didn't bloody well understand it oh my days, that takes the biscuit.


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Well, feel free to explain this "ignorance" to various Wado Ryu federations around the globe who contain descriptions such as this on their websites;



What of the part you highlighted don't *you* understand. Your highlighted quote backs up 100% what I put in my earlier post about Wado Ryu.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 30, 2014)

There is one reason for this tread.

Hanzou:





Off to bed, those scotches kick hard. Talk to you guys tomorrow.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

K-man said:


> What of the part you highlighted don't *you* understand. Your highlighted quote backs up 100% what I put in my earlier post about Wado Ryu.



You said that many JJ techniques already existed in traditional karate. That quote states that the founder of Wado Ryu incorporated JJ into his personal style of Karate in order to create a more complete system.

If your argument were true, no style mixing would have been necessary.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> You said that many JJ techniques already existed in traditional karate. That quote states that the founder of Wado Ryu incorporated JJ into his personal style of Karate in order to create a more complete system.
> 
> If your argument were true, no style mixing would have been necessary.



In the beginning was karate, then there were different styles then there were those who wished to go back to the one karate and then there are idiots who think they know it all. My son, I will pray that you may gain enlightenment.....or at the very least reading comprehension.


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

Gosh, things are travelling so fast I almost missed this little gem. 



Hanzou said:


> Well for starters I never claimed to be an expert in Karate.



You could have fooled me. You backed up your crazy notion of karate by telling us you held a high rank in karate that turned out to be Shodan. Now your saying you are not an expert so I accept that you know nothing about karate and that validates our opinion of your opinions on karate.



Hanzou said:


> Further,  I was responding to the notion that there were 70+ grappling abilities within Karate and TKD. If all of that grappling is "hidden" in the kata, I'm not surprised that its almost nonexistent in modern karate. Its pretty hard teaching grappling from a kata.


Grappling starts on day one with the stances. Sanchin dachi, zenkutsu dachi and Shiko dachi are three of the stances you are taught on your first training session that are your stances for your first takedowns. That is day one, not after you get your Shodan. Then mawatte was mentioned. Maybe not taught on day one but certainly in the first three or four lessons. Mawatte is a hip throw. You really didn't pay attention in your karate classes. A white belt in my class could show you those, in fact my students all have to demonstrate them in their Kyu gradings, plus a wide range of locks and holds. As to 'modern' karate, I wouldn't know but it was even in the Japanese karate I was taught over 30 years ago.

So why is it so hard to teach grappling from kata? The use of kata and the application had been explained to you countless times yet you still make stupid claims about kata, something you never understood and obviously have zero knowledge. As soon as you start training the kata bunkai you are grappling.



Hanzou said:


> Pretty hard to learn grappling without sparring as well.


Define sparring! The videos you claim to be karate sparring have all been point sparring, competition type sparring. I posted some of the other style of training and you spouted that it wasn't real karate and that no one else trains that way.

If sparring is what you do in BJJ then we spar too.




Hanzou said:


> Scroll up, that's exactly the numbers Danny T mentioned.



Here is what *Danny* said;


Danny T said:


> Hanzou]You got any video examples of this grappling outside of demonstration purposes?.[/QUOTE]
> There is grappling in Muay Thai said:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

Something wrong with my post.
Here is the rest of it if anyone else can't read it ...

Referring to Danny T's post ...

That seems pretty clear to me. What part of it did you have difficulty understanding? I couldn't find his post referring to 70+. If you are going to quote a post then quote it properly.



Hanzou said:


> Most people's first experience with Bjj was in the UFC. Royce did plenty of striking . Same applies to the Gracie in Action films. Again, plenty of striking.


I'm not denying there is striking in BJJ. It is ironic that you ignore the striking in Aikido and the grappling in karate, especially after so many people have told you, you are wrong.[/QUOTE]


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> You said that many JJ techniques already existed in traditional karate. That quote states that the founder of Wado Ryu incorporated JJ into his personal style of Karate in order to create a more complete system.
> 
> If your argument were true, no style mixing would have been necessary.


*Read the post*. Shotokan was a Japanese form of karate that removed most if not all of the grappling. Otsuka reintroduced the grappling component after studying with Okinawan masters. He just put back into his karate what was already in traditional karate. To me Japanese karate in the main may be classified as traditional but not in the sense of being the same as the original, but perhaps that's a little deep for you.


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> In the beginning was karate, then there were different styles then there were those who wished to go back to the one karate and then there are idiots who think they know it all. My son, I will pray that you may gain enlightenment.....or at the very least reading comprehension.


Love it ... absolutely love it.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

K-man said:


> Gosh, things are travelling so fast I almost missed this little gem.
> 
> You could have fooled me. You backed up your crazy notion of karate by telling us you held a high rank in karate that turned out to be Shodan. Now your saying you are not an expert so I accept that you know nothing about karate and that validates our opinion of your opinions on karate.
> 
> Grappling starts on day one with the stances. Sanchin dachi, zenkutsu dachi and Shiko dachi are three of the stances you are taught on your first training session that are your stances for your first takedowns. That is day one, not after you get your Shodan. Then mawatte was mentioned. Maybe not taught on day one but certainly in the first three or four lessons. Mawatte is a hip throw. You really didn't pay attention in your karate classes. A white belt in my class could show you those, in fact my students all have to demonstrate them in their Kyu gradings, plus a wide range of locks and holds. As to 'modern' karate, I wouldn't know but it was even in the Japanese karate I was taught over 30 years ago.



I find it interesting that you imply I know nothing of karate because of my statements, yet you go on to say this in post #239;



K-man said:


> *Read the post*. Shotokan was a Japanese form of karate that removed most if not all of the grappling. Otsuka reintroduced the grappling component after studying with Okinawan masters. He just put back into his karate what was already in traditional karate. To me Japanese karate in the main may be classified as traditional but not in the sense of being the same as the original, but perhaps that's a little deep for you.



Interesting. So I know little of Karate because I point out the lack of throws when you yourself admit that the grappling from Shotokan was removed?

Even your personal hero Ian Abernathy discusses the dearth of grappling in karate instruction;

Karate Grappling Did It Really Exist Iain Abernethy



> So why is it so hard to teach grappling from kata? The use of kata and the application had been explained to you countless times yet you still make stupid claims about kata, something you never understood and obviously have zero knowledge. As soon as you start training the kata bunkai you are grappling.



Because you don't develop the sensitivity necessary to become a proficient grappler without grappling with a partner. The grips, the leverage, the weight, the resistance, etc. is all vital for grappling training.



> Define sparring! The videos you claim to be karate sparring have all been point sparring, competition type sparring. I posted some of the other style of training and you spouted that it wasn't real karate and that no one else trains that way.
> 
> If sparring is what you do in BJJ then we spar too.



Sparring - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

One-step drills ain't sparring.



> Here is what *Danny* said;



That's not what Danny said. Read post #185.



Danny T said:


> Yea, I agree shadowchaser my experiences are similar.
> Let's see,
> Shotokan in 71 & 72, throws, takedowns, arm and leg locks, & chokes. Yes we did.
> Goju Ryu in 73 -74, throws, takedowns, arm and leg locks, & chokes. Yeap did that.
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

Oh dear, Danny's not saying he learned 72+ throws at all! You really don't understand what is written.

A dearth of grappling does not indicate there was never nor that there is not grappling in karate. I know what Iain said, I have his books, been to his seminars and am on his forum where such things are discussed...politely and knowledgably among the posters.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 30, 2014)

[QUOTE="Hanzou]
That's not what Danny said. Read post #185.[/QUOTE]

Sir, sir, sir you read into things that aren’t there.

What I was commenting on was that _my experiences_ in Karate as for learning throws was similar to shadowchaser in that I learned some throws in Shotokan, Goju Ryu, and TKD.

What I wrote was:

“Shotokan in 71 & 72,…” (that is short for; in 1971 & 1972)

“Goju Ryu in 73 – 74,…”  (that is short for; in 1973 to 1974)

“TKD 75 – 76,…” (again short for; in 1975 to 1976)


I did not write anything about 70 + techniques nor did I write anything about throws being widely taught in Shotokan. I can only say what is from my perspective in that I learned throws in the Karate training I experienced. 
And Sir That Experience Is I Learned Throws. Just because YOU didn’t you are attempting to tell me I didn’t either.

You have, and I thank you, strengthen my view that you won't admit your training is limited, your knowledge is limited and will not allow that others have experiences different from you.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

He shoots, he scores! Nice one Danny T!


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

Ok, I've just worked it out. You have to expand the box to read my comments.



Hanzou said:


> I find it interesting that you imply I know nothing of karate because of my statements, yet you go on to say this in post #239;



I'll repeat it ... You know nothing about karate!  I'll couch it in terms you might understand. I probably know more about BJJ than you know about karate. I know very little BJJ which is why I *never* comment on technical BJJ issues. Perhaps you could take a leaf from that book. 



Hanzou said:


> Interesting. So I know little of Karate because I point out the lack of throws when you yourself admit that the grappling from Shotokan was removed?


Grappling was removed from almost all the karate that went into schools and universities because that was not part of the fitness requirement that  was the reason for its introduction into the schools to begin with. That is why I use the term 'schoolboy karate'. 'Schoolboy karate' was what most of us learned in the past and it is obvious that it is all you have ever seen. Even in Shotokan the throws etc are all taught as kihon in the basic training. If you can't recognise them for what they are that is your problem.




Hanzou said:


> And btw, most modern forms of Karate were derived from Shotokan.


Crap!
*<Insert BS emoticon here>*
Probably the next most popular Japanese style, Kyokushin really came from Goju Kai which came from Okinawan Goju Ryu.  Oyama started with Shotokan, but switched to Goju to train with Yamaguchi who had a more rigorous style. Shotokan and Goju Kai were the two styles that dominated not only the Japanese scene but also the international scene. There have been breakaways all over the place from these, as there have been from other styles. Most of those styles are relatively minor.



Hanzou said:


> Even your personal hero Ian Abernathy discusses the dearth of grappling in karate instruction;
> 
> Karate Grappling Did It Really Exist Iain Abernethy


You are being offensive and obnoxious. Iain is one of the most highly respected Western karateka. He is not my personal hero. He is a man whom I respect and look to as someone who has more knowledge than me, an experience you are unlikely to have. A lot of us lament the dearth of grappling in karate which is why a number of us are trying to address the issue and teach the traditional skills.



Hanzou said:


> Because you don't develop the sensitivity necessary to become a proficient grappler without grappling with a partner. The grips, the leverage, the weight, the resistance, etc. is all vital for grappling training.
> 
> Sparring - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Which is why this constitutes the majority of our training. 



Hanzou said:


> One-step drills ain't sparring.


Which is why we don't do them.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

Danny T said:


> [
> You have, and I thank you, strengthen my view that you won't admit your training is limited, your knowledge is limited and will not allow that others have experiences different from you.



Or that I simply misread your post. Also if you read my response, I respected your experience in Karate. I simply said that I'm skeptical that you learned all of that in the arts described. If you did, good for you.

Still waiting for the names or websites of those schools you trained at. 

And you're welcome.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

K-man said:


> I'll repeat it ... You know nothing about karate!  I'll couch it in terms you might understand. I probably know more about BJJ than you know about karate. I know very little BJJ which is why I *never* comment on technical BJJ issues. Perhaps you could take a leaf from that book.



You mean like you attempted to do earlier with striking in Bjj?



> Grappling was removed from almost all the karate that went into schools and universities because that was not part of the fitness requirement that  was the reason for its introduction into the schools to begin with. That is why I use the term 'schoolboy karate'. 'Schoolboy karate' was what most of us learned in the past and it is obvious that it is all you have ever seen. Even in Shotokan the throws etc are all taught as kihon in the basic training. If you can't recognise them for what they are that is your problem.



Oh I recognize them just fine. I find it interesting that you call me ignorant for pointing out exactly what you're stating above, and what Abernathy discusses in his article that Tez posted.




> Crap!
> *<Insert BS emoticon here>*
> Probably the next most popular Japanese style, Kyokushin really came from Goju Kai which came from Okinawan Goju Ryu.  Oyama started with Shotokan, but switched to Goju to train with Yamaguchi who had a more rigorous style. Shotokan and Goju Kai were the two styles that dominated not only the Japanese scene but also the international scene. There have been breakaways all over the place from these, as there have been from other styles. Most of those styles are relatively minor.



And here we are again with you calling my statement BS, then turning around and pretty much repeating what I said.

Its kind of hilarious.




> You are being offensive and obnoxious. Iain is one of the most highly respected Western karateka. He is not my personal hero. He is a man whom I respect and look to as someone who has more knowledge than me, an experience you are unlikely to have. A lot of us lament the dearth of grappling in karate which is why a number of us are trying to address the issue and teach the traditional skills.



Interesting that I pointed out the dearth of grappling in Karate, and I was called ignorant for it.




> Which is why this constitutes the majority of our training.
> 
> 
> Which is why we don't do them.



Okay then.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

I don't know how to break it to you Hanzou but you misread everyone's posts just about. And if your response was showing respect to Danny's training it didn't read like with the comment you made about the places he's trained and then *again* asking for where he trained because you don't believe him! You are calling him a liar and that is against the rules here.
Either you except that what we are *all *telling you is the truth or you carrying on calling us liars and that will end in getting the thread locked.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

The Cross-Buttocks Throw A forgotten throw of Karate Boxing Taekwondo Iain Abernethy
Please read the first paragraph because as usual you are twisting what has been said.

"Throwing techniques are not something that one immediately associates with arts like boxing, karate or taekwondo. However, basic grappling and throwing methods were once a part of these systems (or their forerunners) and it is only in comparatively recent times that these aspects have been neglected. Neglect does not mean not still taught however. The primary reason for the neglect of these methods is the martial arts changing their focus from the defeat of a violent and untrained attacker in a civilian environment (self-protection) to the defeat of practitioners of the same discipline in a sporting environment. This has seen many techniques not associated with sporting success - often the most brutal and potent ones - fall by the wayside. - "

red words are mine.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> I don't know how to break it to you Hanzou but you misread everyone's posts just about. And if your response was showing respect to Danny's training it didn't read like with the comment you made about the places he's trained and then *again* asking for where he trained because you don't believe him! You are calling him a liar and that is against the rules here.
> Either you except that what we are *all *telling you is the truth or you carrying on calling us liars and that will end in getting the thread locked.



Um, I'm not calling anyone a liar. I'm simply curious and would like more information about a rarity. If someone said they had pictures of Bigfoot wouldn't you like to see them?



Tez3 said:


> The Cross-Buttocks Throw A forgotten throw of Karate Boxing Taekwondo Iain Abernethy
> Please read the first paragraph because as usual you are twisting what has been said.



And how exactly was this throw "forgotten"?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Um, I'm not calling anyone a liar. I'm simply curious and would like more information about a rarity. If someone said they had pictures of Bigfoot wouldn't you like to see them?
> 
> 
> 
> And how exactly was this throw "forgotten"?



Really? Just how insulting are you going to get? We tell you we have learnt something and you call this a 'rarity'? We, karatekas all tell you about our training and you  state 'no you didn't do it', on the basis that in your limited experience in karate you didn't do. I have never played American football but I would not dispute what an American football player says when they tell how the game is played.

Seriously, your obtuseness and refusal to actually believe what anyone says is  provocative, rude and counter productive to any sensible discussion on the subject. People have gone to great lengths to prove something to you and you have thrown everything back in their face because you think it flies in the face of what you _think_ you know but _*quite honestly you do not.*_

Iain Abernethy is on FB, he can be emailed and you can join his forum, please do because you aren't going to believe any of us and I don't actually think you will believe him seeing as you are also disrespectful towards him but at least you will be peddling your nonsense elsewhere. Perhaps he can explain Tegumi to you, perhaps he will  make you understand why he has written books on the karate grappling, throws etc. because all you appear to be doing here is extensive trolling. Yes I used the word trolling because I have no other explanation for the fact that you spend considerable time posting on here just to upset people by refusing to believe what they have written, mocking their experiences in martial arts and generally being unpleasant in the way you approach them. Asking for proof isn't going to endear you or engender a useful debate every time you disagree with someone.
Someone suggested you were young and fairly new to martial arts, if so then there's hope you may learn the empty cup principle. A lot of us have trained a very long time in our styles, we may not always be right about things, we may not always remember things but for sure this doesn't mean you sneer, tell people they couldn't have done something and generally act like a spoilt brat demanding attention because you've found you can pick your nose and think it very clever indeed.
I for one will not be answering any more of your posts on this thread, when I feel the need to be insulted, mocked or generally misused I will take off people from 'ignore' and read them but I imagine hell will freeze over before I feel that need.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 30, 2014)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.  

jks9199
MT Asst. Administrator


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

Abernethy said:
			
		

> *However, we need to be 100% clear that the grappling of karate is not comparable to the highly skilled grappling exhibited by MMA practitioners.* It is, by design,* very crude by comparison *and as I said in the year 2000 in my Karate's Grappling Methods book, *“If your aim is to compete in sport grappling, or to posses the skills needed to out wrestle a trained grappler, then it would be prudent to take up a dedicated grappling art.” *- See more at: Karate Grappling Did It Really Exist Iain Abernethy



http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/karate-grappling-did-it-really-exis

Interesting.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Well for starters I never claimed to be an expert in Karate. Further,  I was responding to the notion that there were 70+ grappling abilities within Karate and TKD.



In TKD there is easily 70+ grappling techniques, from wrist-locks, arm-bars, releases from holds, sweeps, takedowns etc.



Hanzou said:


> Pretty hard to learn grappling without sparring as well.



Not really, depends on what you mean by 'grappling' and 'sparring'.





Hanzou said:


> Most people's first experience with Bjj was in the UFC. Royce did plenty of striking in that. Same applies to the Gracie in Action films. Again, plenty of striking. There's also this;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This video certainly highlights why GJJ is not a striking art. Oh and if you try to get up like that at 8:55 and you will get kicked in the head, I expected more from a ground fighting art.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Or that I simply misread your post. Also if you read my response, I respected your experience in Karate. I simply said that I'm skeptical that you learned all of that in the arts described. If you did, good for you.
> Still waiting for the names or websites of those schools you trained at.



Again you are unable to or simply refuse to say you were incorrect.
Ok you misread causing you to be incorrect in your understanding of what I wrote which cause the discussion to be invalid.

"...respected your experience in Karate."
No what you did was write a left handed comment about having gone to some random dojos and that learning throwing being normal is dubious at best.

And you want proof.


Once again there is a disparity in our definitions.

This was back when there was no such thing as web sites/pages. Approx 20 years prior. Yes believe it or not we old guys did train back then. No internet and no you tube so you probably won’t find anything on these ‘random’ dojos. The instructors have moved on or retired.


71 & 72 Iberia Karate under Sensei Ernie Fournet – retired in 2000 I believe

73-74 Wichita Falls Karate- Sensei Munroe Murcer – past away around 2004

75-76 Jacksonville Tae Kwon Do – Master Jong Kim (If I remember correctly) ???

In the Iberia Karate school we did some kata but there was more emphasis on fitness and conditioning, attack and counter drills. Falls, rolls, throws, takedowns and sparring every 3 or 4 classes.

In the Wichita Falls Karate school we did more kata and some drilling, standing grappling, locking, tripping, throwing, and getting back to your feet. Lots of sparring seems it was every class we did some sparring.

At Jacksonville TKD there was a lot of stretching and kicking but every class began with a warm-up of rolls and getting back to your feet drills. Not a lot of sparring but for the higher ranks. We also did trips, sweeps and throws every few classes in some form.

Anyway I’m sorry (for you) your training didn’t have grappling or throws in it for you may have gotten a better understanding of bunkai and what the movements to positions mean and how to apply them. Not that I am any good at it in Karate. However, I feel I have more respect for it due to having a different perspective than you.

All the best in your journey.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> In TKD there is easily 70+ grappling techniques, from wrist-locks, arm-bars, releases from holds, sweeps, takedowns etc.



Well at least you admit to it.




> Not really, depends on what you mean by 'grappling' and 'sparring'.



I mean grappling and sparring.



> This video certainly highlights why GJJ is not a striking art.



Who said that Gjj/Bjj was a striking art?



> Oh and if you try to get up like that at 8:55 and you will get kicked in the head, I expected more from a ground fighting art.



Yeah, Royce attempted a kick to the head at 9:18, and Rorion showed exactly how it would be blocked by the elbow/forearm.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Really? You actually believe that you can keep someone's arm extended simply by grabbing their wrist?



You seem to be under the impression that the arm will be extended for an extended period of time (see what I did there). Can you keep their arm extended for 5 minutes - not likely, can you keep their arm extended for the second or two it takes you to perform a throw - not a problem.




Hanzou said:


> I think grabbing someone's wrist while they're trying to punch you in the face or body is extremely difficult.



Since you have very limited experience with blocking and little knowledge of martial arts in general I am not surprised you think that.



Hanzou said:


> It is also extremely difficult to control a person's entire body with one arm.



Have you not seen any Aikido video ever?




Hanzou said:


> Of course I'm talking to someone who think they can punch and kick their way out of side control and the mount, so I shouldn't be surprised.



Of course I am talking to someone that thinks grappling beats striking in every situation and based on the fact that you think the striking in the video you posted is good doesn't surprise me either.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I mean grappling and sparring.



Doesn't answer the question.



Hanzou said:


> Who said that Gjj/Bjj was a striking art?



No one does, especially not based on that video.




Hanzou said:


> Yeah, Royce attempted a kick to the head at 9:18, and Rorion showed exactly how it would be blocked by the elbow/forearm.
> 
> Thanks for playing.



And against a kick with any descent amount of power, blocking head on like that, you would get a broken arm and kicked in the head


----------



## Buka (Nov 30, 2014)

You guys need to chill. If you were in Dojo and speaking to each other like this - and don't tell me that has nothing to do with it - whoever the hell taught you would probably kick your *** for manners.


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/karate-grappling-did-it-really-exis
> 
> Interesting.


It would have been more interesting if you had posted the correct link.
Karate Grappling Did It Really Exist Iain Abernethy

I had read it in the past and I reread it just now. What part did you find interesting, the bit about karate being designed to combat untrained assailants or the bit saying that the grappling in karate is different to what you find in a system designed to compete with others skilled in the same art? Really you are on a losing streak. Everything in that article validates what we have already posted.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> You seem to be under the impression that the arm will be extended for an extended period of time (see what I did there). Can you keep their arm extended for 5 minutes - not likely, can you keep their arm extended for the second or two it takes you to perform a throw - not a problem.



You need to keep the arm extended while your stepping in for the groin grab. So you catch their wrist, extend their arm, and then step in and grab their nuts, still somehow extending the arm, and your opponent not resisting you at all. Its nonsense.



> Since you have very limited experience with blocking and little knowledge of martial arts in general I am not surprised you think that.



Care to show some examples of free sparring where people are catching each other's wrists from punches?



> Have you not seen any Aikido video ever?



Yes, and Aikido goes with the motion of the attack to assist in establishing control over the entire body. That throw doesn't.



> Of course I am talking to someone that thinks grappling beats striking in every situation and based on the fact that you think the striking in the video you posted is good doesn't surprise me either.



You mean Gracie striking? They did a pretty good job against striking arts on various occasions. That would include TKD. I would say that that proves that their striking is at least competent.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

K-man said:


> It would have been more interesting if you had posted the correct link.
> Karate Grappling Did It Really Exist Iain Abernethy
> 
> I had read it in the past and I reread it just now. What part did you find interesting, the bit about karate being designed to combat untrained assailants or the bit saying that the grappling in karate is different to what you find in a system designed to compete with others skilled in the same art?



The part where he said that karate "grappling" was crude by design and is not comparable to MMA grappling.

I bolded the text for reason.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The part where he said that karate "grappling" was crude by design and is not comparable to MMA grappling.
> 
> I bolded the text for reason.


Did anyone say it was comparable?  You keep making claims it doesn't exist.


----------



## Elbowgrease (Nov 30, 2014)

Here's a good video...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//Mr Bean - Judo Class - YouTube" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

Buka said:


> You guys need to chill. If you were in Dojo and speaking to each other like this - and don't tell me that has nothing to do with it - whoever the hell taught you would probably kick your *** for manners.


True, but if someone walked into a dojo and told them that their martial art was s#'t then things might get interesting and really, that is exactly what is happening here.

Style bashing is against the rules but you can obviously get away with it if you choose your words carefully to avoid the obvious. I find this type of discussion offensive and annoying, the very reaction these posts are designed to engender. It might be different if this was the first time it has occurred but sadly, that is not the case. 

I am sick to death of being told my training is archaic or that my kata training is a waste of time, that there is no grappling in karate when we practise it every session, when such posting comes from a person with *no* understanding of traditional karate. I am sick of being told that unless we compete in the ring to 'prove' our effectiveness then our training is second rate, even though the styles we train were never designed for the ring.

I'm happy to take your advice. Just what should we do? I ignored it and walked away but the attacks intensified without me. This used to be a forum where we had a free interchange of ideas and advice. We never had to spend countless hours defending our chosen martial art from a troll. We even tried humour as a distraction. But if you have an idea of how to put a stop to this nonsense I'd be happy to go along with it.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Did anyone say it was comparable?  You keep making claims it doesn't exist.



I'm pretty sure that Kman himself said that Shotokan removed grappling from its curriculum. Shotokan is one of the most common karate styles in the world.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I'm pretty sure that Kman himself said that Shotokan removed grappling from its curriculum. Shotokan is one of the most common karate styles in the world.


And?  it's not the only style.  Karate is a broad term.  I know we have it in Goju, I know it's in Isshin ryu, Tez said it's in Wado Ryu.  And Elder showed it's in Shotokan so.......there goes your argument


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> And?  it's not the only style.  Karate is a broad term.  I know we have it in Goju, I know it's in Isshin ryu, Tez said it's in Wado Ryu.  And Elder showed it's in Shotokan so.......there goes your argument


 
It's in Kyokushin, though you might not get to see it-hell, there are people out there claiming to do Kyokushin who don't practice kata....


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I'm pretty sure that Kman himself said that Shotokan removed grappling from its curriculum. Shotokan is one of the most common karate styles in the world.


 
It's never been "removed from the curriculum," any more than striking was removed from judo.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> And?  it's not the only style.  Karate is a broad term.  I know we have it in Goju, I know it's in Isshin ryu, Tez said it's in Wado Ryu.  And Elder showed it's in Shotokan so.......there goes your argument



My argument has always been that grappling isn't prevalent in karate. Considering that Ian Abernethy himself said that there are traditional and modern instructors of karate that don't teach it, that the founders of karate viewed it as unimportant and secondary to striking, and that the grappling that does exist in karate is "crude" and not comparable to actual grappling, I would say my argument is just fine.


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

> *However, we need to be 100% clear that the grappling of karate is not comparable to the highly skilled grappling exhibited by MMA practitioners.* It is, by design,* very crude by comparison *and as I said in the year 2000 in my Karate's Grappling Methods book, *“If your aim is to compete in sport grappling, or to posses the skills needed to out wrestle a trained grappler, then it would be prudent to take up a dedicated grappling art.” *-


I'm not sure what you find so surprising._ "Grappling of karate is not comparable to the highly skilled grappling exhibited by MMA practitioners"._ Wow, that's really cerebral stuff. Who would of thought that? I have said in many other posts, if I was going to compete against trained grapplers I would learn BJJ. Just what did I mean by that? Well, grappling on the ground is of no interest to me. I have no desire to compete with trained grapplers in the ring. My grappling skill is to get my opponent to the floor, hopefully without me following him down. If I do go down, cool, I believe I have sufficient skill to regain my feet against most grapplers.

_“If your aim is to compete in sport grappling, or to posses the skills needed to out wrestle a trained grappler, then it would be prudent to take up a dedicated grappling art.”  _More rocket science! 

Why are you going on and on questioning the attributes of other martial arts? Give up, go and start a thread "float like a feather, sting like a horse fly" or something else to showcase how BJJ is the greatest! (With apologies to Mohamed Ali.)


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)

elder999 said:


> It's never been "removed from the curriculum," any more than striking was removed from judo.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)




----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)

\


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)




----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)




----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

elder999 said:


>



If only the free sparring looked as good..






What happened?


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> My argument has always been that grappling isn't prevalent in karate. Considering that Ian Abernethy himself said that there are traditional and modern instructors of karate that don't teach it, that the founders of karate viewed it as unimportant and secondary to striking, and that the grappling that does exist in karate is "crude" and not comparable to actual grappling, I would say my argument is just fine.


Um, no! You argued for a long time that grappling never existed in karate. You have feet of sand, constantly shifting. There are many instructors who don't teach it because their instructors didn't teach it. That doesn't mean it wasn't there, just that it wasn't taught. And I'm surprised that you are quoting Iain Abernethy as in the past you have torn him down.

But again you have stated and a fact something that us blatantly untrue. Just which 'founder of karate' viewed grappling as unimportant? Which one actually said grappling was secondary to striking. In the traditional form of karate you start with Tegumi. Like contemporary practice you enter to engage (grapple), strike and withdraw. Every time you return your hand to carriage you are training to grapple. It happens with every single strike in karate kihon so to say it is unimportant is stupidity. Why would you train something regularly that is unimportant?

Your next offensive remark is that karate grappling is not comparable to 'actual' grappling. Just what does that mean? It might be crude but it sure as hell is effective. 

Your arguement is not fine. It is blatantly flawed and as with most of your posts, offensive to those of use who diligently train and teach those skills. This is style bashing as bad as I have seen on this forum.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> You need to keep the arm extended while your stepping in for the groin grab. .


 
_Do you?_


----------



## K-man (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> If only the free sparring looked as good..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So why did you post these videos except to hang s#'t on the training yet again. No comment, no question. Of course the implication is that what you see in the bunkai training is different to what you see in kumite. Here you have an explanation of bunkai and sport sparring, exactly the reason we, and many other traditional Goju schools don't do it.

I don't know if Tom Hill's karate guys compete in karate tournaments. If they do it only stands to reason that they would spar in their training.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

K-man said:


> So why did you post these videos except to hang s#'t on the training yet again. No comment, no question. Of course the implication is that what you see in the bunkai training is different to what you see in kumite. Here you have an explanation of bunkai and sport sparring, exactly the reason we, and many other traditional Goju schools don't do it.
> 
> I don't know if Tom Hill's karate guys compete in karate tournaments. If they do it only stands to reason that they would spar in their training.




They don't;
goju.co.uk

So it's not sport sparring. That's how they fight. 

Where'd all that Bunkai go?


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)

elder999 said:


> _Do you?_


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 30, 2014)

elder999 said:


>



LoL! 

I especially liked the part where he threw him 10 feet.

C'mon man, you're a Judoka, you should know better.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> LoL!
> 
> I especially liked the part where he threw him 10 feet.
> 
> C'mon man, you're a Judoka, you should know better.


 
_Principle based_, and a demonstration-*you* should know better. 

Also, you should look back to post #178:



elder999 said:


> Actually, given Funakoshi's relationship with his Okinawan homeboys, and the Japanese, and what went into _giving_ the Japanese *空手*?,_karate_ *empty hand*, as opposed to the Okinawan's 唐手, _kara/tang te_, *China hand*, what isn't shown in the photographs of the throws is of no small importance-he is stepping through with the strike to the groin, but *he's also doing something else that isn't shown.*
> ....


 
There were things in Kyohan that were deliberately omitted, in case that wasn't clear. Cirdan even hinted at it, just as this video did (not the best example, but it is Yari Dama, so.....)


----------



## K-man (Dec 1, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> They don't;
> goju.co.uk
> 
> So it's not sport sparring. That's how they fight.
> ...


No, that is how the spar. Big difference, but then I wouldn't expect you to understand.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 1, 2014)

elder999 said:


> _Principle based_, and a demonstration-*you* should know better.



If you think that's a sound throw, more power to you Elder.



K-man said:


> No, that is how the spar. Big difference....



Riiiiight.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 1, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> If you think that's a sound throw, more power to you Elder.


 
Hey, it's a throw-it would work in a real situation against someone who hasn't trained for it. It isn't one of my "go to" items, but I'm old, crusty and sociopathic-I'm as likely to shoot or stab someone as I am to drop them on their head.

Anyway, a few pages ago you were insisting that there was "no grappling" in Shotokan, or any of the other forms of karate-about which you seem to have limited understanding, BTW (like, you know-Shotokan is "modern," and Shorin-ryu and other _Okinawan_ forms of karate are what Funakoshi used to make it up, back in the 1920s.....Kyokushin comes mostly from Goju....._sort of_....., as K-man said, and lots of other forms came from Kyokushin...

(Still waiting for that apology, BTW)


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 1, 2014)

elder999 said:


> Anyway, a few pages ago you were insisting that there was "no grappling" in Shotokan, or any of the other forms of karate-about which you seem to have limited understanding, BTW (like, you know-Shotokan is "modern," and Shorin-ryu and other _Okinawan_ forms of karate are what Funakoshi used to make it up, back in the 1920s.....Kyokushin comes mostly from Goju....._sort of_....., as K-man said, and lots of other forms came from Kyokushin...



Just to clarify, Kman said that Shotokan had no grappling. I said that grappling wasn't prevalent in Karate.

Big difference,



> (Still waiting for that apology, BTW)



Ain't happening.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 1, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Just to clarify, Kman said that Shotokan had no grappling. I said that grappling wasn't prevalent in Karate.
> 
> Big difference,


 


Hanzou said:


> *You're the one telling me that karate is some sort of grappling art, yet I have to see any grappling in it* outside some demonstrations by a couple of individuals.* If grappling in Karate is as prevalent as you say it is, where is it*?


 
No, there's no big difference. The way you said it, it's kind of like saying black people aren't prevalent at KKK rallies.





Hanzou said:


> Ain't happening.


 
Mmmhmmm.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 1, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> that the grappling that does exist in karate is "crude" and not comparable to actual grappling,


So grappling in Karate is not "actual grappling", good to know. 

The striking in BJJ, as seen in the early  UFC, is crude and not comparable to 'actual striking'. See we can do that too.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 1, 2014)

Ok. Karate. They spar like they do because of their stance work. Which strengthened and stretched their bodies to perform the movements that they use when sparring.

having sparred kyokashin guys. (should learn to spell that) they kick fundamentally different to thai. That is due to the different training.

and their grappling is meh.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 1, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> You need to keep the arm extended while your stepping in for the groin grab. So you catch their wrist, extend their arm, and then step in and grab their nuts, still somehow extending the arm, and your opponent not resisting you at all. Its nonsense.



Or you could grab it whilst it is already extended from a punch.



Hanzou said:


> Care to show some examples of free sparring where people are catching each other's wrists from punches?



Translation - if it does not appear on YouTube or in a video somewhere it doesn't exist.



Hanzou said:


> Yes, and Aikido goes with the motion of the attack to assist in establishing control over the entire body. That throw doesn't.



I did not say it did. I merely responded to your claim that you can not control a whole body with just one arm.



Hanzou said:


> You mean Gracie striking? They did a pretty good job against striking arts on various occasions. That would include TKD. I would say that that proves that their striking is at least competent.



And as far as I can remember, he did not defeat a single opponent with striking.


----------



## K-man (Dec 1, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Just to clarify, Kman said that Shotokan had no grappling. I said that grappling wasn't prevalent in Karate.
> 
> Big difference,


 You are constantly misrepresenting people and basically that constitutes lying. I have just reread 15 pages of this thread to ensure that I was correct in my thoughts. Why would I say that Shotokan has no grappling when grappling is inherent in the kihon and the kata. Whether grappling is practised in a particular school is a different question.

So how did you get it so wrong? Well for a start you don't read the posts.



K-man said:


> *Read the post*. Shotokan was a Japanese form of karate that removed most if not all of the grappling. Otsuka reintroduced the grappling component after studying with Okinawan masters. He just put back into his karate what was already in traditional karate. To me Japanese karate in the main may be classified as traditional but not in the sense of being the same as the original, but perhaps that's a little deep for you.



Here I said Shotokan removed most if not all of the grappling. That is to say as a sport style karate with rules that prevent clinching and throwing the training of grappling just isn't there in most cases. The elements of grappling are still in the kihon and the kata. Perhaps I should have said Otsuka reintroduced the grappling training into Wado.



Hanzou said:


> Interesting. So I know little of Karate because I point out the lack of throws when you yourself admit that the grappling from Shotokan was removed?



Which just goes to show that if we don't refute your misrepresentations when you post them your post the misinformation as fact later.



K-man said:


> Grappling was removed from almost all the karate that went into schools and universities because that was not part of the fitness requirement that  was the reason for its introduction into the schools to begin with. That is why I use the term 'schoolboy karate'. 'Schoolboy karate' was what most of us learned in the past and it is obvious that it is all you have ever seen. *Even in Shotokan the throws etc are all taught as kihon in the basic training. If you can't recognise them for what they are that is your problem.*


Actually, even when I do refute your statement you still claim your misinformation as fact.
I'll repost the important bit ...
*Even in Shotokan the throws etc are all taught as kihon in the basic training. If you can't recognise them for what they are that is your problem.*



Hanzou said:


> I'm pretty sure that Kman himself said that Shotokan removed grappling from its curriculum. Shotokan is one of the most common karate styles in the world.


Well I'm pretty sure K-man never made that claim at all and whether or not Shotokan is one of the most common styles has nothing to do with the discussion.



Hanzou said:


> My argument has always been that grappling isn't prevalent in karate. Considering that Ian Abernethy himself said that there are traditional and modern instructors of karate that don't teach it, that the founders of karate viewed it as unimportant and secondary to striking, and that the grappling that does exist in karate is "crude" and not comparable to actual grappling, I would say my argument is just fine.



Um, no. You were arguing that karate was all punches and kicks, no grappling. As with the shifting sands your position has changed.




Hanzou said:


> Just to clarify, Kman said that Shotokan had no grappling. I said that grappling wasn't prevalent in Karate.
> 
> Big difference,


Just to clarify, K-man never said that at all.

Big difference indeed. From your original position to this. But my position has not changed. Even in Japanese karate where I started years ago we had limited grappling. Once I saw Okinawan Karate I was blown away. It is close contact fighting most of the time.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 1, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> If only the free sparring looked as good..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dude are you that freaking insecure in yourself and your style (if you even train which I'm not conviced of) that you constantly have to bash others.  I don't understand how this train wreck hasn't been locked yet.  1 comment about the 2nd amendment around here and the thread is locked down in a second.  Yet you have spent 15 pages telling people karate is crap and bashed damn near everything about it and none of the admin care. Not to mention countless other threads doing the same thing.  I guess it's ok to bash a style as long as you don't name it personally and use broad terms like "karate"  So I guess I can start talking crap about "grappling"  or that grappling style from south America  and that's ok as long as I don't actually name it.  This place is so damn inconsistent with its rules.  

Instead of being a stubborn little jerk why not open your mind and see what people are saying.  People like Elder and Kman have been doing this for probably longer the  you have been alive.  People like Tez actually help train fighters her experience is valuable.  There are plenty of others here that have much more time, knowledge, and experience then you do and you think it's ok to just crap on them.  Not only that you make Racist comments to Elder that apparently is ok around here and when he calls you out and asks for an apology you act like a little child.  Man you need to grow up listen more and talk less or don't either way your a clown


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 1, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> So grappling in Karate is not "actual grappling", good to know.
> 
> The striking in BJJ, as seen in the early  UFC, is crude and not comparable to 'actual striking'. See we can do that too.



Well the difference is that the person who said that about grappling in karate was Ian Abernathy, a highly regarded and respected Karate expert.

Are you an expert in Bjj? I don't think so. 



ballen0351 said:


> Dude are you that freaking insecure in yourself and your style (if you even train which I'm not conviced of) that you constantly have to bash others.  I don't understand how this train wreck hasn't been locked yet.  1 comment about the 2nd amendment around here and the thread is locked down in a second.  Yet you have spent 15 pages telling people karate is crap and bashed damn near everything about it and none of the admin care. Not to mention countless other threads doing the same thing.  I guess it's ok to bash a style as long as you don't name it personally and use broad terms like "karate"  So I guess I can start talking crap about "grappling"  or that grappling style from south America  and that's ok as long as I don't actually name it.  This place is so damn inconsistent with its rules.



Just FYI; Pointing out the lack of grappling in modern Karate, or that a group of karatekas are sparring differently than their bunkai isn't "bashing" karate.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 1, 2014)

[QUOTE="Hanzou, post: 1670921,]

Just FYI; Pointing out the lack of grappling in modern Karate, or that a group of karatekas are sparring differently than their bunkai isn't "bashing" karate.[/QUOTE]
Just an FYI of that's all you were doing we wouldn't be having this conversation.  If that's all you believe your doing you need to seek some help


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 1, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Are you an expert in Bjj? I don't think so. .


 I am not an expert in BJJ but I know when striking is good and when it isn't.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 1, 2014)

Mod Note:
Thread locked pending staff review.


----------

